Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 6 November.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To he read a second time on Monday 6 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Caribbean

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to pay an official visit to the Caribbean to discuss trade and financial relations.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): There are no plans at present for my colleagues or me to visit the Caribbean.

Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in the Caribbean about the effects of 1992 on bananas, sugar and other commodities? As 1992 comes closer every day, would it not be a good idea for a Minister to visit the Caribbean to discuss some of these matters face to face so that people there know where they stand?

Mr. Redwood: I should be delighted to be invited to visit the Caribbean in due course. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting some of the islands next week, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be leading a delegation to the Miami conference at the end of the month, where they will discuss a number of issues with other countries.
On the hon. Lady's spcific point, the British position is that the Lome negotiations should continue so that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved for the banana producers in the ACP regions, and that will be the Government's prime aim in our conversations with our EC partners. We wish to ensure that after 1992 those interests are safeguarded in the wider European market.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that the economies of many of those countries, especially in the eastern Caribbean, will face collapse if there is not a constructive and successful end to the negotiations? Will the Minister

give an assurance that the Government are committed to ensuring that, come 1992, those islands' interests will be absolutely safeguarded?

Mr. Redwood: I give the hon. Lady the assurance that the British Government will do all in our power to put the case of the islands forcefully. We are well aware of the importance of bananas and other such commodities to their economies. There are already many areas in which the Government are offering help, and we give a great deal of aid to the Caribbean. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we give the highest per capita aid for any region in the world to the Caribbean area because of our strong interest in and concern for the Caribbean islands.

Defence Manufacturers

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with United Kingdom defence manufacturers about developing alternative non-military products, in the light of any possible reduction in demand for weapons.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): None, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many of our traditional industries have suffered because they have failed to recognise changing markets in the world? Is it not clear that if the east-west disarmament talks are successful, and there is also a reduction in regional conflict, the world's arms markets will be reduced? Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is only commonsense for the Government to discuss with arms manufacturers ways in which they can look for new products and new markets so as to secure the jobs of those who work for them without continuing to be purveyors of death to the world?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, slightly less than candid with the House. The prime motive behind his question is his long-standing commitment to slash defence expenditure. For example, the House might like to know that in July 1983, long before Mr. Gorbachev began his present policies, the hon. Gentleman was seen to be voting against the Defence Estimates. His question exposes the Labour party's long-standing hostility to a credible defence policy.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that nothing in his reply applies to me? As the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly travelled across Russia in September, it discovered that there was a major move within the Russian nation to reverse the current ratio of 60 per cent. scientific and technological research to 40 per cent. civilian. Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the major difficulties in achieving that is getting industry to bring it about in a five to seven-year period? Would not discussions along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) therefore have quite a degree of success for the benefit of our industry, irrespective of the defence aspect?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is a great deal more persuasive than the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) because his credentials are so much better. The plain truth is, however, that it is for the defence companies to assess where their markets lie. We are seeing


an encouraging move in the direction outlined by my hon. Friend—by Racal and Marconi, for example—but we are not in the business of driving people where they do not want to go.

Dr. Bray: The Minister has been giving singularly stupid replies. Far from making good the cuts in defence research and development that they have made over the past three years—amounting, in real terms, to some 10 per cent.—the Government have added to the problem by cutting their support of civil industrial innovation by 11 per cent. Furthermore, research and development expenditure in 1988–89 was some £40 million below what the estimate provided, so the Government have even cut back on their own plans of just one year before.
Is the Minister not aware that all of that is having disastrous effects, particularly on the profit expectations of the electronics industry? No fewer than five defence contractors, including Ferranti, have been up for sale. Does the Minister not want any British manufacturing industry to survive?

Mr. Hogg: That is a singularly silly question, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He must find his party's defence policy extremely disquieting. The Labour party conference committed itself to defence cuts of approxiamately £5 billion, which means a reduction of some 30 per cent. in conventional defence spending. Just think of the unemployment consequences of that!

Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the many defence contractors in the north of England will be extremely wary of any Government who tell them which products they should be making and which they should be getting out of? Does he agree that defence manufacturers throughout the north and, indeed, the whole country will be very anxious about the future if Labour ever came to power and cut defence by £5 billion?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, and I can be more specific than my hon. Friend. I have a list of six substantial defence contractors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—Reemploy Limited, Thorn EMI, Oldham Crompton Batteries, Rotunda Limited, Robert McArd Limited and Denton Containers, to mention only the largest. I imagine that employees in those companies will be extremely alarmed by the views of the hon. Member who purports to represent them.

EC Meetings

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I intend to maintain close contact with all my European Community counterparts, and a whole range of matters will be discussed.

Mr. Michie: When the Secretary of State meets his EC counterparts, will he be communicating the views of the Prime Minister or those of the deputy Prime Minister on Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

Mr. Ridley: I firmly believe—as, I think, do both my right hon. Friends to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred—that the right position is the one enunciated at the Madrid summit.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any counterpart in the European Community —he is unique. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I mean that in a nice way. When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the European Community, does he discuss with them the Labour party's plans for an industrial investment bank to make dud investments with unlimited supplies of subsidy from taxpayers in this country, and does he think that those plans would meet with the European Commission's approval?

Mr. Ridley: As always, my hon. Friend is right in all that he has said. The industrial development bank proposed by the Labour party would, I am convinced, be entirely against the spirit of the single market and the state aid rules of the Community. Indeed, now that we have an efficient industry which is not subsidised, one of the greatest disabilites of British industry is caused by the behaviour of European countries which continue to subsidise their industries, distorting the competition and costing British firms jobs when they do not win contracts. The policy of competitive subsidisation to which the Labour party tends to seek to return would spell absolute disaster for the health of British industry.

Mr. Ron Brown: Although, for obvious reasons, I disagree with the EEC, will the Secretary of State make it clear to his counterparts in Europe that he and the Government believe that it is in the public interest that public ownership of Ferranti should be supported, preferably with workers' control? Is not that an extension of democracy for which he and others must argue?

Mr. Ridley: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), nationalised industries in competitive environments which make losses and then recoup them from the taxpayer are a great device for avoiding fair competition. That device, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is costing us jobs and orders and is damaging the British economy.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to reinforce the message to our EEC partners that the British Government take a dim view of the social charter put forward by the EEC, that British business on the whole regards it as a disaster, that Britain has created 2·5 million additional jobs in the past 10 years by deregulating and operating free markets and that we do not intend to reverse that trend?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I could not do nearly as well as he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did when they attended the relevant council. My right hon. Friend's rebuttal of the principles of the social charter won the argument but, I am afraid, not the vote.

Mr. Gould: Where does the Secretary of State stand on the vexed question of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? I hope that he will not hide his light under a bushel. Why can he not tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that, "You cannot buck the markets" or whether he supports the view of the deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Chancellor of


the Exchequer and the CBI that we should join straight away? Could it be that, as on so many other issues, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shies away from responsibility and has no view whatever?

Mr. Ridley: On the contrary, I take full responsibility for my view, which is that the principles put forward in the Madrid summit are correct and the whole Government agree with them.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend cause to be translated into many languages the transcript of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's interview with Mr. Brian Walden on Sunday? Will he then cause it to be circulated to everyone in Europe, particularly those involved in the ERM?

Mr. Ridley: I shall be happy to bring that suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I must point out that I have some responsibility in the matter. Until broadcasting is liberalised in the Community, the transcript may not reach all the parts thereof.

"British Business"

Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Following the decision that responsibility for the statistical series with which the Department of Trade and Industry was previously concerned should transfer to the Central Statistical Office, British Business magazine lost much of its market and was no longer viable.
I understand that the CSO is about to launch a series of business bulletins containing most of the new data previously published in British Business.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister admit that British Business, which was an information exercise by the Department of Trade and Industry, was cancelled as part of the Secretary of State's policy to turn the Department into a Trappist order? It is similar to the Secretary of State being barred from the Conservative party conference so that he could not make a speech about the £20 billion trade deficit. Will the Minister give an undertaking on behalf of himself and the Secretary of State that when the Chancellor increases taxes, which would be against the policies of the Secretary of State, he and his hon. Friend will both resign?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be saintly, but I hope that he will not become a Trappist. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) did not listen to my answer, which was very straightforward. There has been a perfectly sensible reordering of activities within Government, with the result that figures which were previously available through the vehicle of British Businesswill now be available in an alternative way. There is nothing particularly sinister or difficult about that.

Mr. Marlow: How would British business, which has been publicised quite frequently by the publication British Business, be affected by the social charter or, as it has been called, the strikers' charter which some Greek lady is trying to impose on Britain?

Mr. Forth: I share my hon. Friend's concern, but I believe that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done a magnificent job so far in drawing to the attention of the people of this country and of Europe the patent shortcomings of the social charter. I am sure that all Conservative Members will continue to do that so that people may be clear in their minds that the kind of principles enshrined in the social charter will damage employment throughout the European Community and also the Community's competitive trading position in the world. That is why we are against it and that is why we shall continue to be against it.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Putting the Department of Trade and Industry in the charge of the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the collection of freebooting free-marketers sitting alongside him at a time when all our competitor countries are engaged in close collusion between industry and government is an act equivalent to putting King Herod in charge of a day nursery. Is not the particular act of vandalism in closing down British Business symptomatic of an approach which will send British industry naked into the Euro/chamber?

Mr. Forth: Even allowing for the hon. Gentleman's tendency to hyperbole, that was a bit over the top. We are talking about a publication which, excellent though it was, was attracting only about 5,000 subscribers towards the end of its life.

Mr. Mitchell: I was one of them.

Mr. Forth: One could hardly say that that made it a major British institution. Nor, however excellent it may have been, was it the main or only vehicle of communication between the Government and business. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the figures which created most interest in the business community will be available in very much the same format through Central Statistical Office publications which will fully replace what is no longer available through British Business.

Takeovers

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations on the creation of near monopolies resulting from the takeover and break-up of United Kingdom industrial groups by Bermuda-based companies.

Mr. Redwood: I presume that this is a reference to the bid by Pembridge Investments, a Bermuda-registered company, for DRG. I and the Director General of Fair Trading have received various representations from hon. Members and others about it. The director general is still considering the bid before giving his advice.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend's assumption is quite correct. Does he not agree that there is room for concern when the only basis for a bid is the subsequent break-up of a group, with the resulting sale forming virtually the creation of a monopoly of several parts of the group? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend reassure me that the potential monopoly is taken into account while the bid is continuing rather than waiting until he is presented with a fait accompli?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point because I know that he has a constituency interest in


the matter and he is right to make representations in any way possible. Were there to be a subsequent sale of an asset after a bid had been successful, that itself would be subject to investigation by the competition authorities and to any advice that the director general might see fit to give my right hon. Friend. I cannot give any further information about the current bid. My right hon. Friend will make his judgment on the basis of all the representations and submissions in the light of the director general's advice.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister declare his opposition to this type of junk bond funding of the destruction of British companies, of which DRG is the latest victim? He is quite right to say that in Bristol the takeover of that company will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the engineering industry—not just in DRG but in associated companies. Is it not time for the Government to step in and say once and for all that junk bonds and high leverage bids against thriving British companies are not to be permitted?

Mr. Redwood: Junkiness is in the eye of the beholder. The Government believe that these decisions are best made by shareholders and bankers, who have to make important judgments on behalf of the companies in which they are investors or which they are financing. The Government's competition and monopoly policy is clear and consistent. It was last stated in the blue paper on mergers, and was restated subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a speech and by myself in a speech to the House on the BAT-Hoylake bid. I recommend that the hon. Lady reads the statement of Government policy, which is clear and gives shareholders and bankers the powers and opportunities that they need to make the right decisions on behalf of the companies in which they invest.

Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that Sea Containers is a Bermuda-registered company. It announced today that it will be selling its Isle of Wight ferries. My hon. Friend will be further aware that in May I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) about a possible bid for the Isle of Wight ferries. I regard it as a considerable injustice, as do my constituents, that British Rail's board of management sold those ferries in the only privatisation in which employees were not allowed to purchase shares in their own company —an incredible reward for many years of loyal strike-free service to the Isle of Wight. Will my hon. Friend keep a weather eye on the sale of the Isle of Wight ferry routes, which are so essential to us, to ensure that this time a United Kingdom-registered company can purchase them and that the employees will have the opportunity of sharing in the wealth that they create?

Mr. Redwood: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is a good constituency Member of Parliament. I know that he has taken a strong interest in the Isle of Wight ferry service because he rightly wants a first-class service for his constituents. I understand that officials at the Office of Fair Trading are making preliminary inquiries into ferry services for the Isle of Wight under the competition legislation. Anyone who has views on the subject should write to the director general, as I believe that my hon.

Friend has done. Any possible buyer of the ferry services, which according to press reports today are on the market, will be considered in the usual way by the competition authorities, who will make their advice available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Stott: Is the Minister saying that the Government do not have a view about high leverage junk bond bids against succesful British companies? He will be aware of the problem that this method has caused BAT Industries recently. The leveraged bid for DRG is causing the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Is he saying that the Government do not have a view, when successful British companies are being attacked by companies formed offshore in Bermuda with the sole purpose of breaking up British companies and making money for individuals rather than shareholders?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my previous reply. The Government have an extremely clear mergers policy, which has been stated on several occasions, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads it. The aim of merger policy is to ensure that the public interest is not damaged. Public and private interests most usually diverge, but not uniquely, where competition is adversely affected by the proposed merger. All considerations can be taken into account by the director general, who gives his advice on any particular bid in the usual way. The question whether people should borrow to buy things is largely a matter for them, for shareholders and for bankers. Where will the hon. Gentleman stop in his investigations into people borrowing to buy things? Does he believe, for instance, that borrowing to buy certain kinds of houses is wrong, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was saying in the Walden interview?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no national interest in this? How does he define national or public interest? Is it correct for people based overseas, who can remit profits overseas, to take over and break up British companies which are of great value to the economy merely to make money for a few people and not for the general public, bearing in mind that most such companies are owned by institutions rather than the public in general? We must have a national industrial strategy.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend should take note that the central point of Government policy is to allow shareholders to decide in most cases. They are the proper people to make those decisions and there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that they are bad at making them. Shareholders should be allowed to make up their own minds. By all means if there are major matters of importance, draw them to the attention of shareholders, the company and the institutions concerned, perhaps through the press and in the normal way. In most cases it is right that people should be free to buy or to sell their assets as they see fit. The public interest is defined in various ways, depending upon the situation, and the director general will give the necessary advice to my right hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the importance of Trade and Industry questions, but we are making very slow progress. We must get on more rapidly.

Engineering Profession

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the status of the engineering profession; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: None, Sir.

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that to supply a good, well-trained engineering profession for the future we need to raise the status of that profession perhaps to the same level as it is on the continent?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important issue, not least because engineers are tending to move out of that profession into other occupations. Having read the 1989 survey by the Engineering Council, I am glad to say that I see considerable grounds for optimism, partly in terms of increased remuneration for engineers, partly because of satisfaction with the profession and because of the increasing number of chief executives who are qualified engineers.

Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, the status and image of engineering, notably in the west midlands, has become associated with building rubble and empty sites where there were previously thriving engineering concerns? Can the Minister give the latest Government estimate of when the number of engineering apprenticeships will reach the level that it was when the Government came to office?

Mr. Hogg: I am able to give the hon. Gentleman good news. Comparing 1986–87 with 1978–79 he will find that students with first degrees in engineering and technology have increased by 26 per cent.

Kemp Report (ECGD)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the recommendations put forward in the Kemp report on status option for the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Ridley: The interdepartmental working group of officials formed to consult interested parties and to advise Ministers on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD has just submitted its report to me. No decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Cran: Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to reject the doomwatch notions of those who suggest that the Government are merely using this review to cut dramatically finance for projects business on the premise that only large companies benefit from it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is bunkum, particularly against the background of a recent northern engineering industries' report which suggests that a recent Indian order benefited 2,600 small United Kingdom companies?

Mr. Ridley: I have not come to any decision about the report. I will do so as soon as I possibly can. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the Kemp report asks the Government to take a large-scale risk while introducing private investment into the insurance by ECGD of safe countries? Surely that must be wrong and surely state agencies should be allowed more flexibility to operate so that they can take large risks and benefit from taking the easier option as well?

Mr. Ridley: The Export Credits Guarantee Department does two things. There is the projects group and the insurance services group. It is suggested by Kemp that they should have different futures and that they should go in different directions. It is important to discuss one or the other of those suggestions but we cannot discuss them both at once.

Mr. Page: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best support he can give British industry on overseas projects and sales is to create a worldwide international level playing field? Will my right hon. Friend work towards that goal? While doing so, will he support the present ECGD aid and trade provisions that are consistent with competition until he achieves that goal of fair international competition?

Mr. Ridley: I agree about the objective which my hon. Friend describes. Our objective in the European single market is to create just that. As for projects outside Europe, it is difficult to align the different forms of aid and credit subsidies that different countries put together. There is no consensus on how they should be constructed. This is a most difficult matter on which to get a playing field without any bumps.

Competitiveness

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Most contacts which my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister bear in mind that, measured in terms of unit labour costs, the competitiveness of British industry declined by 9 per cent. in the first quarter of this year? Since the Conservative party came to office it has declined by 21 per cent.—a worse record than for any other country. As it is now official Government policy to crucify British industry with high interest rates, why does not the hon. Gentleman take a leaf out of Government policy in other Departments and simply abolish all figures on competitiveness and anything that is inconvenient on the ground that the situation will get so bad in the next two years, he will have to do that?

Mr. Hogg: It is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I know that his external interests detain him elsewhere rather a lot.
As for competitiveness, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his singularly powerful speech, spelt out the fundamental and remarkable


transformation in the British economy since the Conservative party came to power 10 years ago. We will not be lectured by the Labour party on questions of competitiveness. Two good reasons for that will suffice for the moment: first, competitiveness declined between 1974 and 1979 by 25 per cent.; and, secondly, inflation touched 27 per cent. when Labour was in office.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will not industrial competitiveness suffer if the claim by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions for a 35-hour week prevails, because every hour worked over 35 will incur overtime rates, thereby pushing up the cost of goods sold?

Mr. Hogg: I agree, but it is much worse than that. Anyone who has the misfortune to study the Labour party's review will find on page 21, for example, a commitment to a payroll tax. One merely has to contemplate the consequences of that on British competitiveness.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given the Minister's comments on competitiveness, can he explain the £20 billion trade deficit and reveal the present trend of bankruptcies among small businesses?

Mr. Hogg: I can only suppose—indeed, I fear it to be the case—that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt precisely with that issue.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not a competitive reality on which jobs depend that the country cannot afford engineering employees to have a shorter working week than employees in West Germany or in many other European countries as long as productivity in Germany is so much higher than ours?

Mr. Hogg: I agree. It would be extremely helpful if the Labour Front Bench would stop backing inflationary pay settlements in the public and private sectors.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that our loss of competitiveness has meant that the share of imports of manufactured goods in our home market has risen from a quarter to a third in the past decade? Does that not show that we are so uncompetitive that we cannot even compete in our home market? Would the cut by the hon. Gentleman's Department of 30 per cent. in support for industrial research and development have anything to do with that?

Mr. Hogg: Here is another hon. Gentleman who was not paying much attention to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday when he drew careful lessons from the strength of growth, especially in investment and output, since the Conservative Government came to power. However, as the hon. Gentleman has got to his feet, may I ask him what he supposes that a substantial increase in national insurance contributions will do to competitiveness? In case he has not read that proposal, it is to be found on page 33 of his miserable policy review.

Credit Cards

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on credit cards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: I have received 370 representations following my request for views on the "no discrimination" rule, which requires traders to charge the same price for purchases made with credit cards as for those paid for by cash or other means. I am still considering these before reaching a decision.

Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. As and when a decision is taken, will he ensure that the interest of the consumer is paramount? In this context, the consumer is not only the individual who uses the credit card, but the supplier who looks to the credit card company for payment.

Mr. Ridley: I agree that the interests of the consumer are paramount. The difficulty in this case is to decide which alternative best serves the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Loyden: Would the Secretary of State like to comment on the suggestion that credit cards should be made available to 12-year-olds?

Mr. Ridley: If they have sufficient credit, it would be possible, but I doubt that they would have.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that outstanding credit on a monthly basis in relation to credit cards equals only 6 per cent. in comparison with the total credit outstanding? Will he note, therefore, that the Labour party's attempt to penalise credit in relation to credit card holders is extremely marginal, like the rest of Labour policy?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The point here is not credit control, but what is in the best interests of consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said in his supplementary question.

North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest intentions concerning the future of North East Shipbuilders Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: British Shipbuilders will continue discussions with those who have shown interest in purchasing parts of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who was then Chancellor of the Duchy, on 13 July, with a view to a speedy resolution of the future of the NESL sites.

Mr. Clay: Does the Minister accept that it is nonsense for his Department to tell British Shipbuilders that in the case of the Anglo-Greek bidders, who are bidding for the North Sands yard for ship repairs and conversion, they have to sign a legally binding agreement not to construct ships there until December 1993 at a time when they require no subsidy from the Government to build ships, as they want to build them on their own account? Britain has a rapidly mounting trade deficit which will be made worse by the closure of our shipbuilding capacity. Given that the


Minister admitted a fortnight ago to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry four different points that the Government had got wrong about this tragedy and farce, is it not time that he recognised that he has got the whole thing wrong and allowed people who want to build ships to get on with it, and to re-employ workers in Sunderland?

Mr. Hogg: Until the hon. Gentleman reached the penultimate and last parts of his question, he was doing rather well because he was asking a perfectly respectable question. It is nonsense to attribute four errors to me and it is even more foolish to attribute a total error to the Department.
On the substantive question. the hon. Gentleman will recall that I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 18 October and that I gave an extremely full response to questions such as the hon. Gentleman's. The plain fact is that I would not support any shipbuilding project in Sunderland in the next five years because it would result in an unpicking of the package of remedial measures put in place in December 1988. The future of Sunderland lies with that package rather than with a small shipbuilding venture.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the amount of money that taxpayers lost since the shipbuilding industry in Sunderland was nationalised?

Mr. Hogg: I do not have the exact figure in my mind, but I know that no contract has been built to cost in the recent past, and during the past five years Sunderland was losing 50 per cent. on each contract.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Government's latest provision finally prove to the House that they have been trying to assassinate not only Sunderland but all British merchant shipbuilding?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself credit. If he had listened to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in December 1988, he would recall that the remedial package that was put in place provided for about £45 million worth of expenditure or forgone tax, most particularly an enterprise zone, and £10 million for retraining for the assistance of small business. To try to characterise that as assassination is plain nonsense and does the hon. Gentleman no credit.

Regional Stimulation

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for stimulating industry in British regions.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Changes in the focus of our regional policies were made early last year. There are no plans for further changes.

Mr. Barnes: In the Derbyshire, North-East constituency in recent years, there has been a decline in coalmining, which will be exacerbated by the ports Bills that hon. Members are due to discuss and a reduction in employment caused by declining railways. The decline in employment is due also to the steel industry in the travel-to-work area and the rationalisation that is taking place in the chemical industry. What has the Department of Trade and Industry done to help my constituents and similar constituents? The Government have cut regional funding by 72 per cent. since 1979. Will they alter their

policy in the run-up to 1992, or are we to expect the same policy from the free enterprise fanatics on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Hogg: Once again we have a case of an hon. Gentleman who has not reflected on his question before asking it. I was disappointed that he did not pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, who managed to get the Chesterfield travel-to-work area made eligible for European structural grants. It would have been at least charitable to reflect on that. The Government's substantial instruments of policy are selective and effective. The principal Department of Trade and Industry instruments are regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants, the consultancy initiative and the ability of English Estates to build in deprived areas. That is a powerful and carefully targeted arsenal of policies.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does not the Opposition's pose as the friend of manufacturing industry in the regions wear a little thin when hon. Members bear in mind that the Opposition have opposed every one of the Government's supply side reforms aimed at increasing the competitiveness of manufacturing? Manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, under this Government, it has risen, particularly in Derbyshire, where manufacturing output and employment have risen faster than in most other regions.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right. It is because we have adhered to our policies that we have seen dramatic downturns in unemployment, which would have gone up had we accepted the policies of the Labour party. Between March 1986 and September 1989 in the northern region unemployment fell by 18·1 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. In the north-west region it fell from 16·6 per cent. to 9·2 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it fell from 15 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. That is a tribute to the Government's regional policy.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the potential importance of projects in companies such as Nissan and Toyota, does the Minister accept that one way of trying to stimulate employment in manufacturing in areas of high unemployment is to encourage joint ventures between those companies and component manufacturers within the United Kingdom? Does the Minister accept also that it would be particularly helpful if there were positive incentives to locate such developments in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Hogg: Such joint ventures are indeed, extremely valuable and they may well be eligible for, for example, regional selective assistance.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most destructive policies for industry in the regions would be if the Government were to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, a policy advocated by the Labour party? Does he realise that such a policy would throw hundreds if not thousands of engineering workers in Yorkshire on to the dole queue? Will he assure the House that the Government will never adopt such a destructive and counter-productive policy?

Mr. Hogg: This afternoon we have identified two policies of the Labour party which would be extremely damaging in that respect. The first is its policy on defence cuts and the second its policy of economic sanctions


against South Africa. The mainstream policies of the Labour party would result in a substantial increase in unemployment.

Mr. Caborn: In the absence of any co-ordinated regional policy, is the Minister aware that all the reports from Europe clearly show that the industrial regions of the north will feel the winds of 1992 quite adversely? Is he also aware of the Audit Commission report "Urban Regeneration and Economic Development" which in its conclusion says:
Government support programmes are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasies. They baffle local authorities and business alike.
There are now 14 instruments in the urban and regional and regeneration programme which nobody can understand and their funding has gone down by 72 per cent. on the 1979 figure.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's longwindedness does not improve his argument. He and his hon. Friend's were clearly not paying attention when I identified the carefully chosen selective instruments of policy which we have put in place. The consultancy initiative in particular is directed to the problems that will arise in 1992 and thereafter.

Loss Adjusters

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to regulate the conduct of loss adjusters.

Mr. Redwood: It is the responsibility of the professional associations of which they are members to maintain the professional standards of loss adjusters.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that loss adjusters acting for insurance companies frequently browbeat and bully innocent claimants? Will my hon. Friend remind insurers that their duty is to recompense people who have suffered losses that are covered by insurance policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that practices of the kind that I have outlined should be drawn to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading?

Mr. Redwood: I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend's accusations. If he has a particular case in mind he should refer it to the professional body concerned because such bodies have disciplinary powers over their members. If my hon. Friend thinks that the abuses are widespread, he should talk or write to the Director General of Fair Trading because he has powers to negotiate a code of conduct with the professions if he thinks that that is necessary.

Dr. Reid: Many Opposition Members would like to be associated with the genuine compliments paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by his Conservative colleagues because we have found out that such compliments are the political equivalent of the last meal of a condemned man. The Secretary of State is not only unique, he is quite brilliant. I would have said "unassailable" but I think that unsaleable——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance to ask a question about loss adjusters.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that if a loss adjuster visited the Clydesdale tube works in Scotland he would find that less damage had been caused over the past five

years by accidental death, burglary and fire than by the absolute refusal by British Steel to invest in that tube works? Will the Minister encourage British Steel to put in some investment?

Trade Statistics

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Redwood: All OECD countries except Portugal, Greece and Spain were in one or other category in 1988, the latest year for which complete figures are available.

Mr. Williams: Is it not an appalling comment on 10 years of Thatcherism that we are almost at the bottom of the world league and that we have the largest balance of payments deficit of any advanced country and the largest in our post-war history? Why is the country so economically weak and defenceless against that invasion of imports? How will the Government's policy of high interest rates and an overvalued pound help us out of that mess?

Mr. Redwood: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should highlight that particular issue rather than the many good issues that should be highlighted about the state of the economy. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest figures show that the unemployment rate in the Carmarthen travel-to-work area is down to 3·5 per cent? That is a fine tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies and I should have thought that he would want to say someting positive about that.
The hon. Gentleman must look more carefully at the state of the British economy to see the many good things that are going on. Why, for example, does he make no reference to the fact that we have the highest stock of overseas assets relative to our GNP of any country? Why does he not refer to the largest invisible surplus of any country? Why does he not refer to the fact that export volume is now up 11 per cent. on—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should have the answer to the question.

Mr. John Townend: How long will it be before the import penetration in the automobile industry is reduced as a result of the massive investment, particularly from Nissan, Toyota and Honda? What effect will that have on the balance of trade?

Mr. Redwood: I was hoping to come to that in answering the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) more fully. Export volume has grown by 11 per cent. in the past three months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly says, major investments have been announced by three large Japanese motor manufacturers, which will make a substantial increase to car manufacturing capacity in this country in the early and mid-1990s. As a large element in the deficit on manufactured goods lies in the vehicle sector, my hon. Friend is right to look forward to much better trading conditions in manufactured motor vehicles as a result of that positive inward investment.
It is a sign of the times that we are attracting a large amount of inward investment as people recognise the strengths of the British manufacturing base and the potential here for selling into 1992. A few years ago the Opposition were complaining when we were in the reverse position—when we had a surplus and were investing overseas. Now people are investing here to cure our balance of payments and trade deficit.

Mr. Gould: Given the appalling deterioration in our trade performance, which the Minister has been obliged to reveal in his answer—incidentally, that gives the lie to the blusterings of his hon. Friend the Minister about the competitiveness of British industry—what explanation does the Minister offer the House for what has happened, or in common with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he have no view to offer?

Mr. Redwood: I thought that Opposition Members were complaining that I had too many views as there is a lot to say about the strengths of the British manufacturing economy. I repeat that it is a sign of strength that people want to invest here. We have had a deficit in recent months because demand has outstripped supply in the short term. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the prudent course of raising interest rates to slow the rate of growth in the economy, so that the supply side can catch up. I am sure that, in due course, that policy will be successful. I am also sure that inward investment will make an important contribution to changing the balance of payments position.

Timber Industry

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding alleged unfair competition in the timber industry as a result of subsidies to sawmills in Wales.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Save for my hon. Friend's letter of 31 August, I am not aware of having received any other representations about unfair competition in the timber industry.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is documented evidence that shows that elements of unfair competition have been introduced into industries, notably the timber industry in this case, as a result of decisions made under regional policies? Will he take this opportunity to deprecate those instances of interventionism?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot do that as I believe that there are powerful economic and social arguments in favour of our regional policy that I outlined in answer to an earlier question. I recognise that when deciding whether to grant aid in particular cases a number of criteria must be taken into account. One of them is, necessarily, the effect on indigenous industries.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has concerning manufacturers' obligations to provide United Kingdom consumers of motor vehicles and major household appliances with reliability and after sales service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Forth: The consumer contracts with a supplier, who is normally a retailer not a manufacturer, and it is against the supplier that the consumer has a right of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for defects in the goods supplied. Manufacturers who provide consumers with guarantees of reliability or with after sales service, do so voluntarily and in addition to the consumer's statutory rights against the supplier.
The Government intend to implement by means of legislation recommendations by the Law Commissioners which clarify and strengthen the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend's reply will be most welcome. However, will the legislation incorporate the proposals which have been prepared by the National Consumer Council and will those improvements be harnessed to serve the needs of the consumer?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly confirm that we are studying the recommendations of the National Consumer Council most closely, as we do all the work of that excellent organisation. I am not yet in a position to say what, if any, elements of its recommendations will be incorporated in future legislation. I am aware that when we legislate we should put together the most effective and up-to-date package in the consumer's interest, and that we shall do.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that at the end of the list of questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry there are no fewer than 14 questions about this country's trade deficit which have been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand from a spokesperson at the Department of Trade and Industry that this is because the Central Statistical Office is now responsible for trade figures. First, hon. Members should have been notified, and secondly, these questions should rightfully be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This is yet another attempt by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to evade answering questions. When I received a written answer to my own question it was an answer about the deficit in the balance of payments, which was not what my question was about. Right hon. and hon. Members have a right to have trade deficit questions answered by the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to be able to help the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the 21st edition of "Parliamentary Practice" which has just come out. On page 286 it states:
It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene.
I am sorry.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that a significant number of Labour Members have put down questions on today's Order Paper and then failed to turn up. Would you be good enough to deprecate that because it is not only an insult to you in the Chair, but unfair to hon. Members from both sides of the House who, having seen a question


on the Order Paper, hope to catch your eye on a supplementary question but find that the original questioner is not here?

Mr. Speaker: It is a courtesy to the House if the Chair is told when Members are unable to be present for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the fact that some hon. Members are not here today has meant that we have been able to reach question No. 20, which was a bit of good luck for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard today the utterly outrageous statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that 12-year-olds should be able to use credit cards. I wonder whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a clear continuation of Question Time and not a matter of order for me. An Opposition day prayer has been set down and if it were possible for me to limit speeches I would do so today because such a large number of hon. Members wish to participate. Points of order which are not points of order are a disservice to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I obtained a letter from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, inviting me to donate more than £200 to attend a dining room function on the Terrace. That document carries the House of Commons logo. It comes from an hon. Member, but it invites me to send my cheque for £200 to a Conservative association. That is a grievous misuse of the House and an attack on the rights of hon. Members. I would ask for the matter to be investigated and for you, Mr. Speaker, to report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: That matter has already been reported to me and it is now in the hands of the Services Committee, which is looking into it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to the use of stationery and House of Commons envelopes in a different case. A letter was sent out to general managers of district health authorities in England and Wales by the shadow Secretary of State for Health on House of Commons notepaper. Paragraph 5 of the leaflet issued by the Serjeant at Arms on the use of the House of Commons emblem, stationery and post-paid envelopes says:
Members who wish to send out circulars may purchase original House stationery, or, at their own expense, may photocopy or by other means reproduce that stationery.
It then goes on to describe what a circular is——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all know that. Every hon. Member has that leaflet. In view of the pressure of time, I should say that the same rule applies to every right hon. and hon. Member. It is not in order to use House of Commons stationery for party political purposes. Complaints should be made to the Services Committee, not to me.

Mr. Bennett: There are two points——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that when private Bills are brought before the House they sometimes have to go back for re-examination. At 7 o'clock today we are due to discuss the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. That Bill started its progress two years ago when there was a balance of payments surplus. It was tiny, but nevertheless it was a surplus. During the Bill's passage we have acquired a £20 billion trade deficit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. There is to be a debate on that very matter later this evening. It is not a matter of order.

Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The opposed private business has been put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is in order, it is on the Order Paper, and it will be debated later tonight. It may well be a matter of argument later on tonight.

Mr. Skinner: No, it is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the function of points of order to raise matters of a party political nature across the Chamber. They must be matters of order on which I can rule. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules in that respect.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You say that you have referred the matter raised in the earlier point of order to the Services Committee. Does that mean that the Committee will report back to you so that you in turn can report to the House? This is a matter not just for the Services Committee but for the House, and it is you, Mr. Speaker, to whom we look to protect the interests of the House.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt if the Services Committee feels it is appropriate to report to me it will do so, and if I am asked to do so I will make that statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order which are not points of order for me. We cannot have party political arguments across the House on any day, and especially on a day when we have great pressure.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter which is vital to the running of the House. Is it in order for Front-Bench spokesmen, particularly the Opposition spokesman on health and social security, to send out in House of Commons post-paid envelopes, to every health authority in the land——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have already said, this matter has been reported to the Services Committee. A Select Committee is looking into the matter. I cannot say any more. I have already answered the point of order raised by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer).

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already stated the rules, and I repeat them. It is not in order for hon. Members to use House of Commons stationery, or even the House of Commons facilities, for party political purposes.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford,South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a matter concerning the prayer against the National Health Service statutory instrument. The Order Paper states:
The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Government organise the business of the week. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met yesterday and that item was not on the agenda. Under Standing Order No. 124, a duty is imposed by the House on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider a statutory instrument
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it
on a number of grounds which are listed in the Standing Order.
There does not seem to be much point in having a Joint Committee set up by the House to consider statutory instruments if the Government insist on putting on the Order Paper an item that the Joint Committee has not considered. We cannot possibly report the matter to the House and engage in deliberations. If we want any


information, the Standing Order requires us to give the Government the opportunity to present evidence to the Joint Committee. So we must take at least a week over the matter. Therefore, the Joint Committee's work is being deliberately frustrated by the Government not saying that, until the Joint Committee has reported, it will not be possible to debate the matter. It is quite outrageous that the Joint Committee, established by the House should be ignored in this way and specifically deprived of the opportunity of presenting a report on the statutory instrument.

Mr. Speaker: The House appreciates what the hon. Gentleman does for the House as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. But today we are not to debate an affirmative order; we are to debate an Opposition prayer and there is a rubric on the Order Paper to the effect that the instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee. The prayer is in order.

Termination of Tenancy

Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower councils and housing associations to terminate tenancies where the dependants of a tenant have been rehoused on account of the tenant's violence.
Last Saturday I was visited in my surgery by a young mother of three children. She and her youngest child, a baby, are currently living with her parents and two other adults in a three-bedroomed house. I have a report from Kent social services saying:
In 1988 it was discovered that
the two older children
had been sexually abused. They were interviewed and disclosed that they had been abused by their father. Although he was interviewed by the Police no charges were laid as it was felt that they were too young to give evidence in Court. However, the disclosures were specific enough for Care Orders to be obtained on both".
Needless to say, the lady who spoke to me is most anxious to obtain a council house so that she can reunite her family. One might ask what has happened to the family home. The answer is that the husband continues to occupy the home. He is entitled by law to continue to occupy that ratepayer-subsidised home for the rest of his life if he so chooses. Even if he had been convicted and sent to prison, he would still have that right for up to a year and the ratepayer would have to pay for housing benefit to pay his rent.
Battered wives and abused children live in a grey statistical area; there are no firm statistics. We can study surrogate statistics—for example, the Children's Society says that almost 100,000 children left home last year, for one reason or another. We are aware of the growth in convictions for marital violence and we know of the tremendous increase in divorce, currently running at about one marriage in three. However, there is no way by which we can obtain accurate figures for offences committed within the home.
However, we can say with certainty that the case to which I have alluded is not an isolated example. There is a home for battered wives in my constituency where volunteers do excellent work. From time to time ladies in that home ask me to try to assist them to obtain a council house. Many of them come from local authority homes, and in almost every case the husband or common law husband continues to occupy the original home. Surely that is a great injustice. A man is given a subsidised tenancy so that he can house his family. That was the purpose of his being given the asset, but that purpose has now lapsed because—I must be blunt—of his wickedness. Is it right that he should continue to enjoy it?
Council officials tell me that in many cases the problem takes a second, sick twist. Possessed of that asset, the man is well placed to install another woman, who may not even know the story of the first family, and so the same sick cycle starts again. In effect, child abuse or wife battering is paid for on the rates, with the council being powerless to do anything about it.
What legal remedies are available? There are two. The first is the ouster order, under which a court can evict the husband or common law husband and can also make a banning order to keep him away from the home. That has two defects. First, it puts the onus of the legal action on the shoulders least able to carry it—those of the wife. In many


cases the principal witnesses are the children, and even if the wife plucks up the courage to apply for the order the last thing that she wants to do is to involve the children. Secondly, she would then be in the same home, when what is obviously needed is for the council to rehouse her so that her husband does not know the address. The council could then recover the original house so that its stock would not be one house down.
There is a second option. In the Housing Act 1985 the Government made a sensible stab at trying to do something about the problem and included provisions in a tenancy agreement to deal with that sort of case. Unfortunately, that also has serious defects. First, it cannot apply to any tenancy before 1985. Secondly, many councils have not yet amended their tenancy agreements, so even those with the most recent agreements cannot take advantage of the Act.
My proposed Bill would cut through all that. If the family had to be rehoused because of the misconduct of the husband, who was the tenant, my Bill would make that a prima facie ground for eviction by the local authority or by a housing association which also provides subsidised housing. It would be a civil measure, as is schedule 2 to the 1985 Act, so that there would be no need to prove criminal charges against the man.
I have received an early and constructive response from the Government, and I am grateful to note that two Ministers from the Department of the Environment have taken the trouble to be on the Front Bench. I am delighted to hear that they will consider the matter. I leave them and the House with this thought. The course of action that I have proposed would have four advantages. First, it would make it much easier for councils such as Canterbury with long housing lists to rehouse those unfortunate families. Secondly, it would take the legal burden from the wife, as the council could take the necessary action. Thirdly, it would eliminate the absurd expense to the ratepayer of having to keep a house going with only one person in it. Fourthly, it would send a clear message to violent husbands that the community is no longer willing to subsidise their activity.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Roger Gale and Mr. Ian Bruce.

TERMINATION OF TENANCY

Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to empower councils and housing associations to terminate tenancies where the dependants of a tenant have been rehoused on account of the tenant's violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

National Health Service

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989, No. 1897), dated 15th October 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th October, be annulled.
I was much entertained to read in last week's Health Service Journal that a senior official had told the journal that the Department of Health expected Opposition Members to come out with all guns blazing in today's debate. I am much obliged to the Department for the constitutional innovation of informing the press of the tactics to be used by the Opposition.
I am being invited to come out firing to defend a profession which—as the whole House knows—voted overwhelmingly Conservative at the last election. I accept my democratic duty with a familiar resignation, as I know that, having accepted those votes, Conservative Members have no intention of defending that profession. I bring to the task a cold and clear perception that there is no prospect of support from them. I am well aware that, had the Secretary of State and I reversed roles and had I occupied his office during the past six months, there would have been no prospect of the BMA's senior negotiators rolling over and playing dead as readily as they have been doing since his announcement that he would ignore them and impose the contract regardless.
The Secretary of State and I are, however, probably in agreement on one matter. The important question is not whether the contract will inconvenience GPs, but whether it will affect patients: that is the issue on which the debate must turn. As I said in the July debate, there are areas of congruence between the Secretary of State and myself on the contract. For instance, I see every reason why GPs who arrange to make their own night visits should be paid more than those who do not; nor do I see any objection to GPs being required to provide leaflets setting out the nature of their practice. I also find it impossible to oppose the proposal that the maximum holiday to which a GP is entitled should be cut—or, as one GPs' paper put it in a headline last weekend, slashed—to six weeks a year. I am happy to support such a suggestion, even when it is made by Ministers who have achieved some notoriety on account of their own holiday arrangements.
These issues, however, are not the core of the new contract; they are the lace trimmings intended to make it more appealing to the eye. The key issue—the key clause —which has caused most GPs to decline to sign on the dotted line is the fundamental shift that it represents in the increase in the capitation element from 46 per cent. to a figure which, although undisclosed, will be at least 60 per cent.
The effect—which we must assume to be deliberate—is to provide an incentive to lengthen patients' lists. I am familiar with the riposte from Ministers that the average list cannot lengthen because, as patients are poached from one GP by another, the average must stay the same. That is merely to restate the laws of arithmetic.
Patients may choose. I do not wish to be contentious on that point. I am happy to accept that patients should have the choice. My contention is that whether patients choose or are poached, the average remains the same. That


conceals the fact that the contract is clearly designed to result in a smaller number of practices with longer patient lists. That is in flat contradiction to the policy pursued for the past 20 years by successive Governments, of encouraging smaller patient lists. In fairness to the Government, it also contradicts the trend of their policy throughout the past 10 years towards smaller lists.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he objects to patients choosing their GP? Is he saying that the principle of smaller lists, which he believes to be common to both the Conservative and the Labour party, gives the House the right to direct patients to stay with a doctor whom they do not like rather than go to the one of their choice?

Mr. Cook: Absolutely nothing I said suggests that I object to the concept of choice. Patients have choice now and I am in favour of making that choice easier. However, I am not in favour of giving GPs an incentive to seek a longer patient list and of penalising those who, sensibly and in their patients' interests, decide not to take on more patients than they can handle, which would result in their having less time for their existing patients. That has nothing to do with patient choice, but everything to do with the incentives to be offered to general practitioners.
As recently as 1987, consensus on this matter was restated by the Select Committee on Social Services. Commenting on the then White Paper on primary care, it said:
The proposal to increase the proportion of GP's income derived from capitation was universally opposed.
Patients' associations were among those opposing it. The statement continued:
The case for further reductions in the GP's list size seems unanswerable.
It would be unfair to suggest that the Secretary of State has answered the case. He has chosen to ignore it. It is a powerful case. More patients on a list mean less time for each patient. The case is all the more powerful as we know that patients want more time with their GP.
The magazine Which? carried out a survey last month which concluded that nine out of 10 patients expressed a preference for more time with their GP. That is entirely reasonable because seven minutes, the average consultation time in Britain, is the lowest in Europe.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No. I wish to finish my point.
The Secretary of State is well aware of the Which? survey. We know that, because he quoted from it at the press conference when he announced that he was to impose the contract. He quoted the following:
We think the new contract is likely to expand the services available to patients.
It is a pity that he did not quote the next sentence:
We think the Government may have misunderstood how highly patients value the time they spend with their GPs. We do not think that you will get more time with the GP in the surgery. Less time with the GP may mean more time with the nurse.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has nearly shot the fox but not quite. Which? said:
We think the new contract is likely to expand services to patients.

Surely that is crucial, because patients will get more choice. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to complain about practice teams, but through family practitioner committees the Government will give the teams better opportunities to help the GP in the practice. Surely that should be welcomed.

Mr. Cook: Hon. Members will observe that I quoted the passage that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to put on the record. On his second point, it is ironic that he should make the case that the Government will rely on primary health care teams using other professionals and employees to provide services when, from 1 April next year, for the first time in the history of the NHS, his Government will place cash limits on exactly those professionals.
Apart from the Which? survey, there is also a study by Wilkin and Metcalfe of what happens when patient lists lengthen. It discovered that, as patient lists lengthen from 2,000 to 3,000 patients, the average contact time per patient falls from 30 to 20 minutes a year. There are already 3,000 practices with more than 2,500 patients per GP. Any contract that tried to meet what we know patients want would set out to reduce the number of practices with large lists.

Mr. John Bowis: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point to increase the number of doctors? Is he able to explain how doctors' patient lists will be expanded along his lines if more and more doctors will be available to share the work load?

Mr. Cook: The number of general practitioners has increased during the last 20 years. However, during the last 12 months, the period during which we have been debating the contract, the number of trainees in general practice has fallen. I shall express grave anxiety later in my speech about the fact that many of those trainees are now finding it increasingly difficult to enter general practice precisely because of the contract that is now before the House.
Any contract that sought to meet patients' needs would seek to reduce the number of practices with large lists. Instead, the Secretary of State is seeking to increase their rewards. Logically, therefore, he expects the number of practices with long lists to increase. If the Secretary of State continues to deny that that is what he expects and wants, there is a simple way to convince us that that is not what he seeks.
I put to the Secretary of State the question that I put to him last July: if he does not wish patient lists to lengthen, and if he shares the consensus of the last 20 years that patient lists should be reduced, why does he not accept the BMA's proposal, which is on the negotiating table, to reduce the maximum number on patient lists from 3,500 to 2,500? Will he not accept that basic step, which would provide some protection to patients against general practitioners deciding as a result of this contract that the sensible and rational response is to hold as many patients as possible on their lists?

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that would impose an artificial constraint upon doctors? It would prevent a GP from taking on to his list a patient who wanted to go on to his list because the patient was satisfied that he or she would get good service from that GP. How


does that equate with the hon. Gentleman's unconvincing assertion that patient choice is one of the issues that he is bearing in mind?

Mr. Cook: No, it would not have that effect. The artificial barrier of 3,500 patients is already there. When a GP hits the 3,500 barrier, the practice takes on another partner. Under our proposal, practices would not be obliged to turn away patients. High patient list practices would be provided with a financial incentive to take on additional partners, thus increasing the tendency to reduce patient lists by increasing the number of doctors. That would provide greater, not less, choice to patients.
Patients are not the only victims of the proposal. The growing number of women GPs is another casualty. In parenthesis, may I say that I welcome the advent to our debates of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I hope she will forgive me if I say that our welcome to her, warm though it is, is as nothing compared to the unfeigned welcome that we give to the departure from our debates of her predecessor. Conservative health policies certainly can do with a woman's view.
I noticed the unfortunate statement earlier this month by the Conservative Medical Society, which urged an increase in Britain's population. It says:
A return to enhanced birth rate would eventually allow more women to return to their prime task of bringing up their families as their profession whilst the young as yet unmarried provide the recruits to the health care profession as in the past.
I suspect that that passage was not drafted by the Secretary of State. He will be aware that, as a strategy for filling GP vacancies, it is deeply flawed. It requires six years at medical school, followed by a year in a hospital, followed by a year as a GP trainee to qualify as a GP. By the time that a woman has completed that, she will be in her late 20s, most likely be married and probably starting a family. Therefore, on the whole, women GPs seek more moderate list sizes. The average list size of women GPs is 35 per cent. below the national norm.
The fear is that, under the new entrepreneurial age being ushered in by the Secretary of State's contract, practices will want to take on not a woman partner but a partner who will play his full part—it will be "his" full part.—in the competitive struggle to maintain income by pushing up patient lists.
I acknowledge that the contract contains new arrangements for part-time GPs, but that overlooks the fact that in the new war to attract and retain patients practices will not want part-timers. Since the first draft of the contract was published in the spring, there has not been a single part-time partnership advertised in Scotland. Curiously, much of the stress in the rest of the contract is to provide services for women and children, such as screening, immunisation, well-woman clinics and child health surveillance. All the evidence shows that women find it easier to accept those services from women doctors. If the Secretary of State is to meet his targets, the hon. Member for Surrey South-West had best take him aside and explain to him that he should make it easier, not more difficult, for women to enter general practice.
The issue whether GPs should be rewarded by numbers goes much deeper than whether there will be enough time for each patient or whether patients will have the right of access to a woman partner. At the heart of the debate is how we motivate the medical profession. The current edition of "Pulse" contains a profile of a GP practice in

Bristol. It is located on a council estate called Hartcliffe, which scores high on the deprivation scale. It has an unemployment rate of 30 per cent., and 48 per cent. of families are single-parent households. The practice does not believe that it will qualify for the new deprivation allowance because it is allocated on a ward basis and, because of affluence elsewhere, their wards score below the Jarman scale.
There are intense demands on the medical practice; 70 per cent. of the children registered with it come from families in which one parent is under 21 and require considerable support. The practice has therefore adopted the conscious policy of reducing the patient-doctor ratio. It has succeeded in reducing it by 25 per cent., with the objective of increasing the amount of time spent on each patient. Far from rewarding it for that ethical decision, the contract will penalise it for not getting stuck into the competition to maximise list size. Here we glimpse the long-term damage of the contract.
The Secretary of State has based his contract on the explicit premise that the only motivation he can recognise is a financial incentive. The majority of GPs spend most of their day not on activities that they have calculated will maximise the revenue of their practice but on activities that in their view best meet their ethical duty to their patients. It is clear from the many conversations that I have had over the past two weeks that many GPs feel deeply the insult that they saw in his comment that he is asking them to do only 26 hours a week. The majority of GPs do well over 26 hours a week, and many work easily twice those hours.
Yes, there may be a few passengers, and, yes, it may be that the only thing that will prod those passengers into greater productivity is the sharp stick of hard cash, but the tragedy is that the Secretary of State has drafted his contract to address the motivation of the minority. The danger is that he will therefore undermine the much finer performance of the majority of GPs, who are motivated by a sense of ethical duty and the public service ethos. If all that matters is meeting the minimum for financial reward, that minimum may become the maximum that anyone does.

Mr. John Maples: If the contract is as misconceived as the hon. Gentleman has said, why did the BMA negotiators agree it?

Mr. Cook: I am sorry to have to advise the hon. Gentleman that the BMA negotiators did not agree to the contract. They recommended it to their members because there was an explicit understanding that if their members, did not vote for the contract the Secretary of State would withdraw the concessions that they had negotiated. That was the precise basis on which they agreed to recommend it in the ballot.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to my next point, which concerns, not the contents of the contract, but the style in which it has been negotiated. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the contract was put to a postal ballot of BMA members. We have been repeatedly led to believe by Conservative Members that postal ballots are the model of modern trade unionism. In the postal ballot on the contract, the membership, in an 82 per cent. poll, rejected the contract by 76 per cent. to 24 per


cent. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded the House, that was in a ballot where the Secretary of State had the BMA negotiators on his side, recommending a yes vote.
A word other than "contract" is needed to describe this document. A word that captures more honestly the authoritarian, centralising nature of the Government who are imposing it would be "edict" or "decree". Those words more accurately capture the flavour of the document that the House is debating.
Perhaps it is a matter of indifference to patients whether the contract is negotiated or imposed. Contracts that are imposed have to be written in a bunker because they cannot go through a process of full consultation which involves taking the people on whom it will be imposed into one's confidence.
We are debating a detailed manual of how doctors should practise medicine daily in their surgeries, which has been written by civil servants in an office in Whitehall. When I read comments in the medical press about the contract, I was struck by the fact that, often, doctors who agreed with parts of the contract were appalled, nevertheless, at how amateurish the contract was in setting them out. For example, on child health surveillance, Dr. Curtis, of the British Paediatric Association, said:
the proposals have been ill-thought out, not properly worked through and I am appalled at the rate at which they are instituted".
Dr. Wilson, a pioneer in developing annual reports for practices, who voluntarily produced an annual report on his practice for five years, said:
The information which the regulations demand is of little use. It seems to have missed the mark and instead of being for the field workers it is for the administrators back at head office.
Dr. Brian Wiggins, who has specialised in minor surgery at his practice and has his own specially constructed surgery unit, says that be believes that the list of minor surgery has been drawn up by a bureaucrat with little surgical experience.
Fortunately, the bureaucrat in question broke cover last week. Mr. John Shaw, the under-secretary in charge of family practitioner services, addressed the family practioner committees' annual conference last week and explained why he had not felt able to indulge in face-to-face discussions with GP leaders on the new contract. He said:
I took the view that in dealing with such detailed fine print the most effective way was to do it in writing.
So there we have it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has entered unusual ground by attacking one of my civil servants by name and by quoting him out of context. The two areas that he refers to—child surveillance and minor surgery —were put into the contract at the request of the BMA. Mr. Shaw engaged in about 100 hours of negotiations with doctors on those services and on the details of how they would be described in the contract. The quotation he has just used describes what was happening at the later stages when we were drafting—crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Criticism should be aimed at the doctors who were closely involved, on the BMA side and on mine, in drawing up the details. The hon. Gentleman should not make cheap attacks on the civil servants involved when he is trying to find a reason to negate this patient-friendly contract.

Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the Secretary of State believes that to quote his civil servants is to attack them. I was quoting the observations of those doctors who practise medicine, who have carried through exactly the kind of innovations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now making mandatory and who clearly from their comments do not believe that the regulations which are now being imposed upon them reflect medical expertise or advice.
The House is invited to pass this edict, which is being imposed despite the rejection of the profession and which was drafted on the explicit basis that it had best be done in writing. When they come to put up a museum to the Government, there should be a special place for this statutory instrument as a document which is one of the finest demonstrations of the Government's style, based on the conviction that the Government know what is good for the rest of us and on the belief that the more one ignores advice, the more one demonstrates the strength of those convictions. Fortunately, the day when the Government can be consigned to that museum is approaching.
There is a sad irony in today's debate, which I am sure has not escaped the Secretary of State and which must privately trouble him. He has chosen to copy the Prime Minister's style of management at the very moment that his colleagues are queueing up to beg her to change it. We are told that the Conservatives want more consultation, listening and sensitivity. They are about to hear a speech from the Secretary of State which all experience warns us will show that he revels in the fact that he is ignoring the doctors' ballot and relishes the idea that he knows better than the GPs in their constituencies what is good for their patients.
The Secretary of State will then invite Conservative Members for the first time in the 40 years of the NHS to impose a contract against the will of GPs. That vote provides an interesting footnote to the turmoil of the past week. It is the opportunity for Conservative Members to show whether they really meant all those fine words about more consultation and listening, or whether the Prime Minister got it right, in that it will be "business as usual". Business as usual means that the Secretary of State knows best—better than the 75 per cent. of GPs who rejected his contract and the 70 per cent. of the public who consistently rejected his White Paper. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues fall for that, those GPs and that public majority may well conclude that the Government do not know how to change their style. If people do not like the style, they had better change the Government.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): There should be a wide measure of agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on large parts of this contract. I suspect that there is a much wider measure of agreement between us than the weasel words that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use would show to the outside world. I am sure that he agrees with me that we are dealing with one of the most important parts of our National Health Service—the family doctor service. I have said many times and am happy to say again that the British family doctor system is the particular feature of the British health care system that in large part accounts for the particularly high quality of health care which we achieve in this country.
I begin gladly by paying tribute to the contribution that family doctors make to the Health Service. We have spent the past 10 years increasing the numbers of those family doctors. We have increased the number of people in their support teams and expanded the service that they provide. When we return in later debates to the details of the White Paper on the wider NHS reforms which I am putting forward, I shall repeatedly emphasise the key role that we will expect GPs to play in the new National Health Service in influencing decisions on implementing provisions for the development of services and the distribution of resources in their locality as never before. Where money follows their patients, the hospitals and community services will respond to GPs and their pattern of referrals even more than they have in the past. They will be the patients' advocates and guides within the NHS even more than they have been before.
We begin, I am sure, by agreeing that the majority of general practitioners work extremely hard. Many of them are workaholics and they are certainly completely dedicated to their patients and to the NHS. In putting forward a new GP contract, my aim, which should be shared by all hon. Members, is to raise the standards of our family doctor service still higher by getting rid of the unevennesses that we all know exist from place to place. My other aim is to reward more fairly those who work most effectively in the family doctor service and to give incentives to best practice, new services and higher levels of performance wherever they are achieved.
We ought to remind ourselves throughout the debate —although we have not forgotten so far—that we are not deciding how much family doctors should be paid. That will be determined by the Government—as it always is —on the advice of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body. Family doctors can be very well paid and deserve to be when they nake the full contribution that the best undoubtedly do to the National Health Service.
These regulations and the debate look at the subject from the patient's point of view. The House is deciding whether the Government are right to specify more carefully what family doctors should be paid for in future. The effect of our decision will influence the income of individual family practitioners, because it will determine to a large extent which of them are paid more than the average net remuneration recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body and which are paid less. That will be a fair reflection of the contribution that each doctor is making and the services that he or she is providing.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the practices in my constituency has set its face against increasing the patient list size? However, it has already worked out that, under the terms of the new contract, by providing the level of service it already provides, every partner in that practice will be about £4,000 better off.

Mr. Clarke: In assessing the impact on their incomes, doctors will look not only at the number of patients they have, unless they have an exceptionally low number of patients that could be expanded, but at the type of services they are providing, the targets they can hit and the new services they can add which will be encouraged by the contract because they will be better rewarded.
Why are we introducing a new contract? There has been a difficult and protracted process of consultation and negotiation. The present contract is 25 years old and its weakness is that it does not reflect the huge changes that have taken place over that quarter of a century.
We are looking back to a contract that was drawn up by a Labour Minister who eventually introduced regulations that he had been induced to draw up in the face of the threat of industrial action with which general practitioners were confronting him. It does not specify clearly what services doctors should provide. There have been many changes in the past 25 years. I will remind the House of the key changes that have taken place during the years for which we have been responsible. They underline our motives which have been challenged by the hon. Member for Livingston.
Since 1979, the number of GPs in the National Health Service has increased by 20 per cent., from 25,614 to 30,789. Those numbers are likely to continue to increase. The average list size has fallen from 2,229 in 1979 to 1,928 now and that decrease in average list size is plainly going to continue. The number of practice staff—nurses, receptionists and other support staff—that make up the primary care health team has increased by 70 per cent. since 1977. We are introducing cash limits to target that help better, and the Government have made it clear that they intend to expand those primary health care teams and increase the help available to doctors to help them expand their teams by removing some of the limits that specify the type of staff who can be employed on primary health care teams.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Some of my doctors are worried that in future they may have to justify the employment of one of those members of staff. They feel that in those circumstances it would be difficult for them to plan ahead, because they would not know what they would be planning for.

Mr. Clarke: The Government will honour the commitment into which we have always entered, to reimburse 70 per cent. of the cost of all the staff employed by GPs from the relevant date, which is next April. Thereafter, when a post falls vacant, GPs will have to notify the family practitioner committee and the committee will have to endorse the continuing need for that post. The reason for that is that 70 per cent. of the cost of those jobs is paid out of public funds, so it is only fair that when the post is renewed, somebody should be given the opportunity to confirm that it is a justified use of public expenditure. I do not envisage that the average family practitioner committee will go around cancelling nurses' posts and rejecting receptionists or practice managers. However, we cannot simply say to the GPs that they can carry on hiring whoever they want and that the family practitioner committees will write off the cost. The post should be checked as it comes up for renewal when the existing contract holder withdraws.
There have been substantial increases in the number of doctors and their support staff, and there has been a dramatic decline in average list size. The last survey also showed the effects that had had on the work load of family doctors. The last survey was carried out in 1985–86 and showed that the average family doctor worked 38 hours a week on general practice. That 38 hours included calls made by the doctor when on call. That average will strike


all of us as low. I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston that it is easy to find general practitioners who are working many more hours than 38 a week on their practices. The reason that the figure is low is that there is a huge variation in time from one doctor to another. When one finds a doctor who says that he genuinely works double those hours, it has to be borne in mind that almost one in four of general practitioners were found to work fewer than 30 hours each week on general practice, and the remuneration system should reflect that.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: On the question of the GPs' work load, does the Secretary of State care to comment on the fact that a Doctor Kermani at a health centre in Essex has stated that the Government will give GPs more work? He is being told by the Government to give information which is normally confidential between patient and doctor on the patient's housing, employment and family problems. Is that true?

Mr. Clarke: It is not, unless the doctor has the patient's consent to do so. The doctor's comment no doubt refers to the surveying of elderly patients when they are visited. That is an extraordinary description of the service, to which I shall return in a moment. The work we are specifying is work that is being carried out in every particular by practices somewhere in the country already.
There is a great variation in the hours worked, and the remuneration should reflect that more accurately. Overall, remuneration has risen dramatically under this Government. We now have 20 per cent. more GPs.

Ms. Harriet Harman: rose——

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way or I shall be giving way after every other sentence.
Doctors' remuneration has increased as well. We have 20 per cent. more doctors than when we took office and the average total remuneration is up by 37·2 per cent. ahead of inflation, to £67,066. The net remuneration—I am not entering into the argument about the value to doctors of many of the indirectly and directly reimbursed expenses which, as self-employed men and women, they are also given—is up by 22·3 per cent. ahead of inflation to £31,105.
Our policy in government has been to increase the number of GPs dramatically, to increase the number of their staff, to bring down patient list sizes and to extend the range of services available by taking on nurses and support staff. We are paying doctors very much better than did the previous Government who, in their last years in office, allowed doctors' pay to drop. The numbers are continuing to rise and all those trends will continue.
Against that background, it is wholly reasonable to stipulate the patient services that we expect should be provided and to lay down some tighter stipulations about the availability to patients of individual doctors. That brings us on to consider the requirements of the contract. I described the hon. Member for Livingston as having used weasel words because he hardly addressed himself to any aspect of the contract. I suspect that, when we examine the items that we are specifying, almost all of which have been challenged by some of the GPs whose cause the hon. Gentleman is advocating, we will see that he actually agrees with them. Every time he mentioned en passant

night visits or something of that kind, he accepted that. The Opposition dare not oppose the great bulk of the real content of this contract. They accept that it is in the patients' interest, and they know that they should support it.
I shall deal briefly with some of the things that even the hon. Gentleman would not have the nerve to challenge. One is the minimum 26-hour availability for patient services at times convenient to the patient. That is a minimum. Of course many doctors will be more available than that, particularly if they have large lists. A 26-hour minimum stipulation is not unreasonable for someone in full-time practice. Higher fees for night visits were agreed. Plainly, patients prefer that if they must have a night visit it should be made by a doctor whom they know or one of his partners or close colleagues. When the doctor carries out that work, it is right that he should be paid more than someone using a deputising service.
I am sure that payments for minor surgery are agreed. The new arrangements for payment of child surveillance should certainly be agreed. As I said, that provision was inserted at the request of the British Medical Association. The details were worked out with the BMA over an enormous period to reach their present stage.
We are giving a higher capitation payment to GPs for their patients over 75. When we pay that higher capitation, it is right that the GP or a member of his team, such as a practice nurse, should try annually to check the home circumstances of the elderly person. It is not enough to say, "We will pay you more for having somebody over 75 on your list whom you might know little about and see rarely." It is a reasonable stipulation to have an overall picture of how that person is coping. Somebody should visit the home and make sure that the home conditions are all right, that the patient is coping with the shopping and cooking and that, generally, nobody else's attention needs to be drawn to that elderly patient.
All those services cannot seriously be challenged. At some of the meetings I have attended, some GPs have queried the need for me to specify that they might do some of those things.

Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend is defending his case very valiantly. Will the 26-hour availability that he mentioned for general practitioners, particularly those in large rural areas, include travelling time and not just availability in surgeries?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He has made that concession.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, that is correct. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It is a concession which I made in negotiations with the GMSC. I made it largely at the behest of Conservative Back-Bench Members from rural areas who challenged me about the 20-hour requirement without travelling time for home visits—a proposition I originally made.

Mr. Michael Morris: On availability to patients, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to 42 weeks, which is accepted, and 26 hours. Is he aware that, if five days occur alongside the 26 hours, a general practitioner on call over a weekend will work for 12 days without a break?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that they are required to work for 42 weeks of the year. The hon. Member for Livingston shares the problem of several of my critics—he has not read the contract. He thinks that we are slashing holidays to six weeks. Ten weeks are available, not only for holidays but for study leave and other things. Nevertheless, the six weeks have nothing to do with the contract.
On my hon. Friend's second point, yes, that can happen, but it is when the doctor chooses to be on call because he or she wants to give that service and wants to be paid more and not use a deputising service. We are not saying that they cannot use deputising services sometimes, but, when they are on call themselves because they choose to be, they should be remunerated more for those calls than for using the deputising service. That will be in the hands of the doctor.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: How does the Secretary of State propose to enforce the contract?

Mr. Clarke: The role of FPCs will be greatly enhanced. For example, on the 26 hours—[interruption] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) laughs at the idea that any of this might be enforced. At least he is not claiming that it is onerous—yet that was the argument, by implication, of his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I am greatly strengthening the family practitioner committees because they have a duty to manage and develop primary health care services in their areas. The committees will be notified by GPs of their ordinary availability to patients. That will mean that, if someone is not making himself available for the minimum 26 hours at times that are convenient to patients, he can be challenged by the family practitioner committee.
The Opposition will not have the nerve to attack the new requirements to strengthen the activities of GPs on health promotion and disease prevention, which is an important part of our contract. Some doctors are against that, but I do not think that many members of the public oppose it. Plainly, the family doctor service is an important arm of the NHS in health promotion. As a result of the contract, when patients first register with their GP they will be offered a check-up and three-yearly check-ups thereafter. The check-ups will be fairly minimal, but will provide an opportunity to give advice on developing problems and to detect problems early.
We have also set targets for proper levels of child vaccination and for screening for cervical cancer. The targets that we have set for vaccination are those recommended by the World Health Organisation. I do not see why we, with our National Health Service, should not set ourselves the objective of attaining World Health Organisation recommendations. Targets for cervical cancer are also important and make allowance for the fact that some women may refuse such tests and some may not require them. The 50 per cent. lower and the 80 per cent. higher targets reinforce all that we have done in recent years to improve screening for cervical cancer which, I remind the House, still causes about 2,000 deaths a year, most of which are wholly avoidable.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point and is developing his argument carefully and constructively. What happens if a doctor does his utmost to reach the target but does not

do so, through no fault of his own? Is it right that, after all the effort and time the doctor has put in, he should not receive the full remuneration?

Mr. Clarke: All doctors are paid for vaccination and for cervical cancer screening. Those things are now an ordinary part of a doctor's duties. We are talking about a kind of bonus payment for hitting particular targets. We are trying to encourage a positive effort by all doctors, which many of them now make, to advise and encourage patients to vaccinate their children or to undertake screening tests at the required intervals. There are still some doctors who challenge the requirement to drive ahead with cervical cancer screening in the way that we have suggested. I had such a challenge from a doctor yesterday. However, most doctors do not object to that.
The only argument was about how the doctors are paid. There is a big difference between paying people for each item, according to the number that they do in a year, and the system that we propose, which sets a target level at which a bonus will be paid because all the efforts of the practice have succeeded in encouraging people to take steps that are in their interests and the interests of then. families.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I must press my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter. I understand that the maximum bonus could be about £1,500. That is quite an amount of money to anyone, and certainly worth earning. If a doctor contacts every patient about cervical cytology or the immunisation of children but, because of religious or other grounds, does not achieve his target, is there any reason why that doctor should not be awarded the top bonus? He has done everything possible to reach the target.

Mr. Clarke: We shall measure the effort, and someone who is making such an effort has little to fear from our targets. We do not say 100 per cent. because we anticipate that some people who have religious or personal objections, which they are entitled to have, will not wish to undergo screening tests. That is why we have gone for 90 per cent. in one case and 80 per cent. in the other. Those are reasonable targets, which should certainly be reached by the most active practices.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. I should like to get on. I am sure that this matter will be raised later, and I shall deal with it then.
When I set out the contents of the contract, I do not believe that many speeches will be made in the House—whatever letters hon. Members may have received from a few GPs—to challenge much of it. The hon. Member for Livingston, in an attempt to achieve topicality, suggested that the way in which we set about achieving that contract somehow reflects an unfortunate style on the part of the Government. Over the years, I have been engaged in the process of negotiation and consultation many times, but I have never been engaged in one that has been so tortuous and protracted as our consultations on the contract. I have not been engaged in many negotiations where I have made more concessions than I have in this respect.
The distant origins of this process lie in the time when I was Minister for Health—I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) now holds that post—and I tried to raise the


question of improving the contract with the royal college. The process got going with the 1986 Green Paper on primary health care. The Government then held 10 public meetings in consultation on those proposals and we received more than 2,000 representations. The overwhelming tenor of those representations was that the contract should be addressed to improving health promotion and disease prevention. There was a great deal of public response and that response was channelled into the White Paper. We then had more than 100 hours of negotiation with the BMA negotiators to discuss all the points.
On 4 May, I had a long meeting with the negotiators, who are extremely tough. The hon. Member for Livingston claimed that those negotiators "rolled over". That is a surprising description given my experience of the general demeanour of the GMSC negotiators. In their opinion and in mine, however, we reached a settlement on 4 May. On behalf of the Government, I made some substantial concessions to reach that position.
I wanted to get rid of seniority allowances—I have Labour predecessors who tried to do the same—as I do not believe that they are performance-related, All they show is that one is growing older. I conceded on that, however, and so long as doctors keep their full seniority allowance, we required that people should go in for the postgraduate training allowances that we are now introducing. I conceded on the basic practice allowance figures, partly in response to arguments, which I did not altogether accept, about the impact of that allowance on women doctors. I was also pressed on the rural practice payments scheme, as I was by a number of my hon. Friends. I agreed to abandon my proposals on that, although I believe that they were advantageous to doctors living in sparsely populated areas. We have agreed to refer that matter to the central advisory committee and it will come back to us on it in due course.
Target payments are an important part of the debate, and I conceded on the lower levels of target payment. That is an important concession as, especially with vaccinations, a high proportion of practices will hit the lower target payment.
On 4 May, I proceeded on the basis of the concessions made. The negotiators then recommended the resulting agreement to their members, but, because of the internal politics of the BMA, unfortunately, all that went wrong and there was subsequent controversy about the contract. [Interruption.] According to the medical press, the vote was conducted in extraordinary circumstances. Long after the vote had been taken, I had meetings that were full of reasonably friendly rural doctors. They all told me that they had voted against the contract because they should be able to keep their rural practice allowance. They were astonished when I told them that we were not withdrawing that allowance. The level of knowledge, among all the campaigning, was slight.
Many of the people who forced the vote were attacking the negotiators as much as me. Given that I have had my difficult times with the negotiators I sometimes feel sympathy for them when I see the attacks upon them. Only yesterday I read The Journal of the Dispensing Doctors Association, which contained an editorial and an amazing article entitled "Willigo Wilson", both by Mr. Roberts and both of which attacked the chief negotiator of the GMSC,

Dr. Michael Wilson. He is a pleasant and friendly man, but an extremely tough negotiator. I shall give a flavour of the type of attacks that he has faced.
The Journal suggested that "Willigo Wilson" should go because he had surrendered so miserably to the Government over the contract, and stated:
A further contribution to the ensuing disaster for general practitioners was that Dr. Wilson accepted that the emphasis in the fight should be almost solely on the effects of the Contract on patients".
The article set out what the themes and aims of the GMSC should be and asserted:
The interests of doctors and patients do not always coincide!
Having agreed that the interests of patients should be put first, the author of the article advises Dr. Wilson:
I would remind him, as he splutters over his morning cornflakes, that military leaders have shot themselves for less!
for conceding to the position reached on the contract. The editorial addresses me by saying:
Yes, Mr. Clarke, the 1990 Contract will hit our wallets and I am not ashamed to admit it
I have good news for the rather unpleasant Mr. Roberts —he is wrong. As I have already said, the new contract will not hit his wallet. The rubbish in The Journal, which is sent to all members of the association, no doubt inspired those members to cast an unreasonable vote against the contract and to mount unreasonable attacks upon Dr. Michael Wilson. He is an honourable man who defends doctors' interests, but, to be fair to him, he also remembers the interests of patients.
To be fair to the profession, I should note that doctors have re-elected Dr. Michael Wilson, who recommended the contract to them, as their leader. We all know that feelings about the contract are fading away rapidly as individual doctors find out more about it. With stuff such as that which appeared in The Journal still being written I wonder who advises the Opposition. Which section of the medical profession does the Labour party listen to when it trots out all its opinions? It is obvious that that medical opinion is not speaking on behalf of patients, but on behalf of the more hot-headed members of the BMA. Such people give the Opposition an inadequate briefing so that they can make selective attacks on parts of the contract.

Mr. Robin Cook: Since the Secretary of State has been so kind as to ask who advises us, will he state just which organisation, whether medical, the BMA, one representing patients or any other organisation concerned with health policies and medical politics, supports his proposal to increase the payments by capitation fees and increase the incentive for longer patient lists? I just want the name of one organisation.

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that what we have done increases the incentive for longer patient lists. The Labour party's approach to the Health Service debate is to talk in terms of organisations. All it needs is for a couple of trade unions and associations to give their views and the public interest, public advantage and patient interest are instantly forgotten. The hon. Gentleman cannot challenge the patient advantages of the contents of my contract. All it needs is for a trade union to oppose it and he will vote against it. He cannot argue against the public interest involved.
The hon. Gentleman claims that capitation will encourage less time to be given to each patient. The main


effect of increasing the capitation element is that it will give added reward to doctors who attract and retain their patients. The idea that we should turn away patients from a particular doctor when those patients want that doctor is extraordinary. I also find it extraordinary that patients will be attracted to a list of doctors who give less and less time to each patient. That is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has tried to put together.
If a doctor has a large list, it is unlikely that he will want to increase it—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already decided not to. If a doctor wants to increase his list size, however, he must attract the patients on to his list. He is more likely to attract them if he offers them more time rather than less. If a doctor already has a large list, he is unlikely to want to increase it; instead, he will consider the services offered.
At the moment, nearly a quarter of our practitioners work more than 30 hours a week. If a doctor is induced to try to expand his list, I do not believe that he will say that at least seven minutes for each patient is not available when that patient comes in for a consultation. Doctors must decide whether they will be able to put in the increased work to justify the increased list. The judgment of the attractiveness of a particular practice will be made by the patients.
I agree with Which? and everyone else that most patients want more time with their doctor. Therefore, the ones that offer more time are the ones most likely to attract patients. The hon. Member for Livingston has already conceded that the idea that most lists will go up is a mathematical impossibility. I advise him to talk to some of the medical lobbyists about that, because I have been unable to persuade some of them that the lists of all doctors will not rise as a result of my proposals.
The female doctors point is an important one. I am glad that the hon. Member for Livingston anticipated that I had never heard of the extraordinary sentence which he read from a publication of the Conservative Medical Society. To be fair to the society, it may have been written by an individual member; I cannot believe for one moment that it represents the policy of the CMS.
We are seeing an every-increasing number of women GPs and wish to do so. Without doubt, we shall see an increasing proportion of women GPs because, at the moment, about 40 per cent. of the trainees up and down the country are women. There are changes in the contract which make it easier to employ women. Part-time contracts are to be allowed for the first time. The valuable concept of job sharing, which professional women of this sort are perfectly capable of organising, is introduced for the first time into the family doctor service. It has been made easier to employ a locum when a women doctor is absent on maternity leave.
I have never been able to understand the argument that the contract is hostile to female doctors, unless it is argued that the contract must be so constructed that male doctors will be given a financial bonus for taking on a woman doctor. I have faced arguments in which that seems to be the proposition. The contract is so based on consumerism and patient choice that rising patient demand for more women doctors and patients' preference to go to practices with women partners will have a key effect and make career possibilities in the family doctor services ever more attractive to women.

Mr. Tim Devlin: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I am near the end of my speech and shall not give way as I have taken longer than I intended in this short debate.
This contract is much more attractive than the previous one and for the Opposition to vote against it is perverse if they really mean it when they say that they are in favour of a patient-oriented service.
What if some of the details are wrong? There is not much wrong in the drafting. There should not be, because, after we had reached the 4 May agreement, the consultation at the final stage of the drafting took months. The GMC was helpful and made helpful contributions to the drafting before we reached the present stage. Parts of the contract may be wrong and it may not be exactly as planned, although I believe that the impact on consumer patient services will be beneficial.
Sooner or later, the contract may be revised when new developments in practice come along. We shall take a look at the targets and consider which other services we should be encouraging. We should not wait another 25 years before doing that. If, in a few years' time, a successor of mine decides to take another look at the GP contract and start negotiating amendments to it, I hope that he will have less of a pantomime and a farce and can make more sensible progress than I or my predecessors at the Department have been allowed to make during the past two or three years. I also hope that he faces an Opposition who at last realise that all parties should be substantially on the patient's side in the disputes about the family practitioner service.
The patient must take advantage of the contract. We have taken the opportunity to make it easier for the patient to judge practices and choose a family doctor who exactly suits his or her family. The regulations will make it easier to change doctor, and this part of the contract will come into effect earliest. From 7 November in England and Wales and 22 November in Scotland, patients will be able to change doctors simply by registering with a new one. That removes the existing need for the patient to obtain the permission of his or her present doctor or family practitioner committee. That change was opposed by the negotiators during our discussions, but we have put it in place.
Under the regulations, GPs will have to provide practice leaflets. The last letter that I received on the subject was from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). One of his constituents wrote to me enclosing a copy of a practice leaflet that he had received. He said that this was the first time he had had any contact with his doctor for many years and thought that this was a highly desirable outcome of the discussions in which we have been engaged.
All over the country, GPs are producing leaflets and, from the information which the GPs will have to provide, family practitioner committees will produce local directories setting out the services available throughout their area. I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to the profession are soon accepted, so that the information can be made available to the public, and doctors, if necessary, can promote their services, as long as they do so in a responsible and professional fashion. That will ensure that, once we have created a more consumer-oriented family doctor service, patients will be in the best possible position to take advantage of it.
Therefore, I recommend the regulations to the House and ask for their endorsement. What we have done is wholly consistent with the Government's overriding objective of strengthening this vital public service and making our great National Health Service a better Health Service in relation to the family doctor service.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Secretary of State for Health is to be congratulated on his characteristically skilful advocacy of his case. However, in these affairs, he represents a somewhat Jekyll and Hyde character. This afternoon we have heard a different Secretary of State from the one whom we have seen and heard talking about doctors over the past few months on national television screens, on national airwaves and in the press.
When the original agreement was concluded, I sat and watched the Secretary of State on Channel 4 news. The language he used was blunt and straightforward. He said that he had won his case against the BMA. That was not the tenor of his remarks this afternoon, because he has had some time to reflect. I dare say that passions have cooled on both sides of the negotiating table, but that was his frame of mind when he first approached the matter.
The Secretary of State this afternoon was not the man who enraged medical opinion—not just professional BMA opinion, but the very patient opinion the importance of which he was at such pains to stress in the later stages of his speech today. He was not the man who, on that infamous occasion, spoke of GPs being more interested in their wallets and incomes than in patient care and patients' standard of service. He presented a different face to us this afternoon. The negotiations are complete and the Secretary of State was right to say in his concluding remarks that there are significant passages of this contract which all of those who want to see an improved National Health Service, improved accountability, choice and sensitivity towards the patient as the consumer—in the non-profit sense—would wish to embrace.
There is more than a suggestion in the behaviour and oscillations of the Secretary of State in recent months to suggest that this is one example where the Government, who have benefited so much from high-profile media advertising have, for once, found themselves at the sharp end of that type of advertising. The Government—perhaps all parties, given that we debate health issues year in and year out—have learnt an important lesson. The lesson is certainly relevant to the Government, who have been at pains to stress how much they are doing for the National Health Service, although, apparently, they are not persuading the public of that—they cannot turn around the political opinion polls on that issue.
Some of us criticise the Government year in, year out, about the damage done to the Health Service. Perhaps that has some effect in persuading public opinion. Once doctors began to tell patients of the damage and potential damage being done to the Health Service, they carried more credibility than any elected Member, and certainly any member of the Health Department, whether official or ministerial.
The rash, intemperate and thoroughly provocative approach adopted by the Secretary of State over the past

few months made what would always have been a difficult, convoluted and intricate negotiation—there is no debate about that—a far worse task. In part, that was due to the deliberately provocative style adopted by the Secretary of State. To a certain extent, the Secretary of State has got his comeuppance.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comment on the fact that the House is substantially empty this afternoon? From what has been said, it seems that this matter should be one of great concern to hon. Members from both sides of the House. Perhaps, with the increased interest in the economy and the counter-productive propaganda put out by the doctors, particularly the BMA, which has turned hon. Members and people outside the House against the BMA, the contract which we are debating today—in which all of us are so interested—has ceased to be a controversial issue and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has won the argument.

Mr. Kennedy: I shall be generous to both sides of the House and assume that, as hon. Members can now stand in the Lobbies and watch live broadcasts of these proceedings, hundreds of hon. Members on both sides of the House are gathered round the television screens hanging on to every word of those contributing.
I saw for the first time today an example of "doughnutting", whereby the few Opposition Members present congregated around their Front-Bench spokesman. We also had a little bit of that around the Secretary of State, but there was a bigger hole in the middle. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has just joined me. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he makes a convincing doughnut. Let us put down the somewhat meagre attendance to the televising of our proceedings.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the heat has gone out of the issue, he is somewhat misguided. When the new Session begins later this month and the new Health Service legislation is introduced, he will find that, although the contract issue will be over from a legislative point of view, the rumblings and knock-on effects will be with us for some time.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
As one would expect, the Secretary of State referred to capitation fees and to the effect of likely increases in list sizes, which he dismissed. It is important to mention that both salary and allowances are included in the capitation element of a GP's income. The Secretary of State has been tempted to reflect the tendency on the part of the press to total all the available allowances plus the salary of Members of Parliament and say that that is our effective gross income. The Secretary of State has been slightly guilty of that at times, but it is not fair.
The capitation element will increase from 46 per cent. to 60 per cent. Much as the Secretary of State may try to reject or counter the argument, the near-certain effect of that will be to increase list sizes. Surely it is not desirable


for GPs, who should be spending more time with their present patients, to end up spending rather less time with more patients.
The Secretary of State tried to counter that, particularly in response to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), by talking about the extension of the range of services and how that would make general practice more attractive. I welcome further information for patients and the greater ease with which patients will now be able to change from one surgery to another, although that is much overdue. But the logic of the funding arrangements that the Secretary of State is modifying under the new contract is that the greater the demand for the range of services being provided by a given practice, the greater will be the increase in the list size and the less time there will be available for each patient. I do not see how the Secretary of State can make the kind of case that he attempted to make in a rather mollifying way this afternoon and at the same time be consistent on the arguments that he is otherwise praying in aid for the new contract.
The Secretary of State referred to immunisation and the system of bonuses in the new contract, with lower bonuses for 70 per cent. vaccinations and 50 per cent. smears, and higher bonuses for 90 per cent. vaccinations and 80 per cent. smears. A key consideration here is how one defines a target population, as the Government have been at pains to do. That is particularly true in areas of rapid population change, not least in the inner cities.
The clear evidence of the Black report's in-depth analysis of take-up levels and health deprivation shows how difficult it is to get through to the very target groups that one is trying to reach on matters such as immunisation, preventive medicine and recall facilities. All too often it is likely to be the more socially confident, the better educated, those with slightly better incomes and so on, who take advantage of any additional facilities that are offered. Despite the best efforts of GPs, health authorities and the Department of Health, the people who are considered to be the most vulnerable, and so the most valuable to reach, are missed as a result of the demographic and practical difficulties that the Government are trying to address.
A great deal needs to be done to overcome problems created by lack of knowledge and fear about, for example, immunisation. It is clear that the Government have a major role to play in health education. The rather worrying suggestion that has emanated from the Secretary of State, not so much this afternoon as on previous occasions, is that almost all the responsibility for that can be landed in the front line at the feet of the general practitioners.
In deprived areas, or among the more deprived categories of the population, the direct patient-doctor contact may come only at the point of acute illness. In the build-up period, where preventive measures could be taken rather than waiting for the crisis, intervention and cure, all too often related social conditions, such as housing or the environment generally, play a stronger part than the general practitioners in the front line. The Secretary of State has given insufficient attention to that fact.

Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Representing, as I do, part of inner-city Teesside, I am, like him, concerned about this matter. A point that he has omitted to mention, which he might like to consider, is the additional funding that will go to GPs

under the Jarman index of social deprivation, which is one of the new features of the contract. Will he also comment on the new system of visiting and inspection for the over-75s, a particular target group which is often overlooked in inner-city areas?

Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State said that the measures taken for the over-75s meet with general approval, and they have not been a source of any serious or significant contention. They are to be welcomed. I have no criticism of that. That section of the population will grow as people live longer, more active and healthier lives, and that is a welcome trend. Therefore, those measures do not go to the heart of today's debate.
With regard to social deprivation and the indices that can be used to show it, we have still not overcome the fundamental difficulty that Black discovered, to which I referred earlier. The problem will not necessarily be conquered by a simple statistical change. An increase in the range of services, material on those services and increased patient choice in the GP's surgery cannot be expected to overcome fundamental social problems which prevent people from going to the GP's surgery until illness strikes, as a result of ignorance, lack of education and counselling from an early age, when most of the interface can and should take place with the family doctor service. That fundamental difficulty cannot be overcome without going much further than the measure we are discussing this afternoon.
I do not wish to detain the House, so I shall conclude with one issue which the Secretary of State mentioned towards the end of his speech—the position of female general practitioners. He was quite right to mention the increase in the number of women GPs, which has almost doubled in the past 10 years. They now represent 22 per cent. of all general practitioners in Britain and 25 per cent. of general practitioners under the age of 40. The demographic shift is most apparent and is to be welcomed.
The Government claim to welcome that development and say that they want to encourage that trend. The primary care White Paper referred to
special arrangements to attract women to General practice and to encourage their appointment to the vacancies which occur".
That is a noble sentiment indeed, and I do not think that there is much disagreement on that until we look at the contract. The likely effect of the new contract will be exactly the opposite of encouraging more women GPs into the Health Service, particularly because of the inbuilt disincentives it offers to part-time and flexible working arrangements.
I shall cite just one example. At present, on average., a part-time female GP brings about £15,000-worth of allowances by joining a general practice. If the practice pays her £18,000 which, on average figures, is about one third of a senior partner's annual salary, the practice is getting about 20 hours a week for an annual net outlay of £3,000 per year. Under the new arrangements, that female GP is likely to bring £6,000 or less in basic practice allowances, so there will be a major and significant shortfall, which represents an equally major and significant disincentive. The cost of employing her will therefore be much greater and the likely result is that, instead of additional part-time, flexible working arrangements being available as the Government claim and wish to enhance, the opportunities for female general practitioners will contract as GPs do exactly as the


Secretary of State says that they will not do, and build up their lists to make up for the financial shortfall which will occur. The contract is a discriminatory measure in that cardinal respect.
As I said earlier, many aspects of the contract are to be welcomed and carry all-party support. But there are also major aspects which have been thoroughly divisive and have not been helped by the belligerence with which the Secretary of State has pursued his case. In his previous post at the Department of Health, he was the only Minister I have ever come across who thought that BMA was a four-letter word. As soon as he came into any contact with that organisation, he seemed to adopt a most intransigent attitude and decide that it must be gloves off. On this occasion, when the BMA took the gloves off, he began to bleat and complain in a rather plaintive fashion. One does not normally associate bleating with the Secretary of State, but we shall give him the benefit of the doubt.
Generally, the motives behind the contract cannot be divorced from the motives involved in the broader issues arising from the White Paper and the legislation which will follow. Despite those areas in which significant progress has been made and which are not the subject of partisan disagreement this afternoon, it is clear that the basic motivation is the reduction of medical costs within a political context to suit the whims of the Prime Minister much more than to suit the priorities of the patients.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Would the hon. Gentleman care to point out one respect in which the contract will reduce costs?

Mr. Kennedy: Reduction in costs will occur in the very last example which I cited, relating to female GPs. That is a cost reduction in terms of the employment of those general practitioners and in terms of the availability of employment for female GPs. That is an obvious example.
The motto should be "people first" in health care. Sadly, it is proving increasingly to be "cash first, people last", and on this occasion the profession, in a rather muted sense, is somewhere in between as a result of the contract.

Dame Jill Knight: I do not know whether the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) meant that his minuscule party will be voting for the motion. If that is his intention, he will be voting against a large number of excellent provisions for patients and doctors.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not only a much-maligned man, but a most unfairly maligned one. His opponents use every trick in the book to twist his words and muddy his intentions. I thought that he was being exceptionally mild and magnanimous when he told the Conservative party conference:
I do not think the BMA have been trying to be entirely helpful.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I wish to get into my speech first.
I thought that the description by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye of my right hon. and learned Friend's attitude towards the BMA was not accurate. I

thought that, when my right hon. and learned Friend most recently expressed his views on the BMA, he was being rather sweet. If that was an accurate comment on the recent activities of the BMA, I tremble to contemplate how members of the BMA would behave if they were trying to be unhelpful.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend's comment was accurate. The BMA has not only been obstructive, but has been intentionally misleading, putting the fear of God into elderly, sick and nervous people in the consulting rooms of its members. I find that very difficult to forgive. Members of the BMA have distributed leaflets which they must have known, not to put too fine a point on it, contained blatant lies. They misled people over the Health Service review and they are doing it now over a contract which is good for doctors and excellent for patients.
It will be excellent that the over-75s will have an improved service. Elderly people are well aware that many of their aches and pains are due to age, but I have heard of frequent cases where doctors hurriedly dismissed those aches and pains without checking. A great deal can be done to improve the hearing, sight and general comfort even of the elderly, and an annual check-up is exactly what they need.
I like the plans to improve health promotion clinics, immunisation and screening for cancer. I am interested in the women's national cancer control campaign. Now, due to the new contract, it is coming on stream with more energy than ever. I approve of regular assessments of the development of children. That used to be done far more than it is today by the ordinary school medical service; there have been gaps in that and I am pleased that it is clearly stated that children are to have regular assessments.
I am glad that there will be additional staff in the surgeries, especially chiropodists and physiotherapists. That is a new and good idea——

Ms. Harman: It is not new.

Dame Jill Knight: It is certainly a new idea to encourage all doctors to have such people in their surgeries. I will not answer any more sedentary interventions from hon. Members who do not know the whole position. These additional people are to be the rule rather than the exception.
It is sensible that doctors should be available to patients on an eyeball-to-eyeball basis for at least 26 hours a week. We appreciate that they work more hours than that because of travelling time, filling in forms and so on, but it is excellent that this improved service for patients is to be introduced.
So much for the way that the contract helps patients, but there is also a great deal that it will do to help doctors. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye claimed that my right hon. and learned Friend said that general practitioners received an average of £65,000 per year—

Mr. Kennedy: I did not.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman said that the sum quoted did not include expenses.

Mr. Kennedy: I said that when the Secretary of State referred to the total gross income of general practitioners, he was adding together salaries and allowances. I drew a comparison with the way in which members of the press talk about Members' salaries. They add up office


allowances, living allowances and salaries and make people think that we are millionaires. Some Conservative Members are millionaires, but some of us most definitely are not.

Dame Jill Knight: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend has always said that the sum of about £67,000 per annum includes expenses—

Mr. Kennedy: Sotto voce.

Dame Jill Knight: That is not true. I have my right hon. and learned Friend's press release, which clearly states that the sum includes all expenses. A press release cannot be sotto voce. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend has been fair in his remarks about average expenses.
For the first time, doctors will receive specific payments for carrying out certain duties such as minor surgery in their surgeries. It is a good and useful service because it alleviates the work load on hospitals, but previously doctors have not received a specific payment for that work. They will also receive payments for health surveillance and health promotion.
It is worth uttering a word or two on the subject of postgraduate education allowances. Although some doctors go to great lengths to keep abreast of all medical developments, others do not. There is to be an allowance to encourage doctors to keep up to date. There will also be increased payments for night visits—I hope that the Opposition favour that. Necessary improvements to doctors' premises will also attract specific payments, and there will be an increase in capitation fees.
One matter that worries me is the proposed supplement for every patient living in an area of deprivation. Not all needy people live in such areas. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would say a few words about what "area of deprivation" will actually mean. Does it mean that doctors will receive additional payments for looking after people who live at certain addresses in rundown inner-city areas? Part of my constituency is an outer-city area, and people ignore the fact that, for example, there are more one-parent families in that part of Birmingham than there is in the inner city. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear that in mind and think not only of where the patient lives, but the extent of his need. I appreciate that that is not always easy to delineate.
Under the contract, it will be easier for patients to change doctors. There will be much less bureacracy and patients can just turn up at a surgery and ask to be put on a doctor's list. I am sure that all hon. Members know of vexatious patients. Some doctors will have to have those patients on their lists. If a doctor says that he does not want them on his list any longer, they are passed around like a parcel. Under the contract, will a doctor have the right to say that he does not want a particular patient on his list? That needs to be clarified.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to repeat, in every speech, the following points—even though he and I know that they should be superfluous: first, that he has an unwavering and inflexible commitment to the principles of the NHS; secondly, that he believes in an NHS funded largely out of taxation giving free medical treatment to everyone regardless of means; and thirdly, that not for one moment will he contemplate privatising the NHS.
Repetition may be boring, but some people have such thick heads that only by repetition can we get the right

ideas into them. We must continue to repeat the truth. I am sick and tired of listening to accusations against the Government and Ministers that they want to privatise the NHS. Anyone who listened to the words that are used would know perfectly well that the allegations are untrue. All the attacks, all the aggro, all the unfairness will not, I hope, deter my right hon. and learned Friend from continuing to improve the NHS. Of one thing I am certain: he will go down in history as having been a great, reforming and improving Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. Let me say first, however, that all the general practitioners in my constituency to whom I have spoken—and most have approached me—have said that they want the Secretary of State to know that his contract stinks. It is absurd for any hon. Member to say that the BMA executive supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman; anyone who knows anything about negotiation will be aware that there is a difference between expressing support and telling the membership, "This is the best that we can offer."
The question of changing doctors worries me. It is easy for the Secretary of State to say that if a patient turns up at a doctor's surgery he must take that patient on. In London, chronic traffic congestion means that it can take hours to cross from south to north; if a GP whose surgery is in the north-east takes on a patient who lives in the south-west, emergency call-outs are bound to be a problem. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edbaston (Dame J. Knight) pointed out, patients can be vexatious, and, unfortunately, some are even deranged. Such a patient might deliberately pick a GP whose surgery is on the other side of the map, just to be awkward.
I did not oppose parental choice in regard to schools, but it has nevertheless thrown up numerous problems. Excellent school buildings are half empty, and the Government are taking no steps to find out why. It is all very well for them to say that parents are still making up their minds; we have expensive buildings to keep up.
While Springburn was being redeveloped, it took us about 10 years to establish a health centre that is now second to none. We managed to persuade doctors to leave their converted shops in the high street and to provide the community with chiropody—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Edgbaston said about that—as well as eye tests, dental checks, nursing sisters and a chemist, all under one roof.
A large health centre may contain six or seven practices. Let us say that some of those doctors are not attracting patients, and that their existing patient lists are dwindling. The Secretary of State may say that the patients are switching to other practices within the centre, but let us assume that they are going elsewhere. In such circumstances, a conscientious doctor will have to pay higher overheads because of the new contract.
I know that the patient is all-important, and that he has the right to decide. If I did not like my doctor I should want to leave his practice. If, however, overheads must be spread among fewer doctors, what help will the Government give? What help will they provide when patients who quite enjoyed visiting a health centre are cut off from it by a new road, and the doctors' list suddenly


becomes smaller? Conservative Members shake their heads, but patients in my constituency have decided to stop visiting their health centre because the road is too dangerous to negotiate, and doctors are losing patients through no fault of their own.
The Secretary of State mentioned preventive care. In a middle-class community where people are relatively well off, a woman who becomes pregnant is more than likely to want first of all to find out about pre-natal care. In parts of my constituency, however, conscientious doctors know that, unless they go out and knock on the doors of women who have been housed under a "difficult to let" scheme, such women will not obtain the care they need.
We have been told that deprived areas are to receive an allowance. Bureaucrats, however, are terrific at drawing a line around an area on the map and designating it an area of deprivation in which a supplement is payable. An afluent area may contain one or two deprived streets, and the local doctor will know that he must visit the neighbourhood himself if he wants to obtain patients. I hope that we shall be told tonight that that will not happen.
The Secretary of State must be aware that, in areas of high unemployment, the problems for practitioners are getting worse and worse. Most people are visiting their surgeries suffering from depression because they are out of work; wives, too, arrive complaining about the pressures put on family life. I worry about the way in which the Government seem to think that practices should be run like nice, efficient businesses. A GP's work is not like a job churning out alarm clocks, for instance, in which payment is made for results. The Government's proposals will mean that the more sympathetic the doctor, and the more prepared he is to listen to patients, the fewer patients he will have.
A year ago, my wife had a serious operation. Two members of the local practice had said, "I will give you a prescription; you will be all right then." The third listened. He made an appointment with a consultant, and my wife obtained the necessary operation—from which, thankfully, she has now recovered. But what would have happened if all three doctors had been under pressure, and had not listened? A doctor who sits signing a prescription while the patient is still talking does not inspire confidence. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) just said, and I do not approve of the practice of speaking from a sedentary position.
When the Secretary of State glibly talks about choice and says that patients can move, he forgets that, even if they are dissatisfied, elderly patients may not be able to get around as well as they did when they were 30 or 40 years old so they may have to content themselves with the local practice. He must know that in many inner-city areas, our communities are getting older. That puts a burden on GPs. In areas where the community is young and upwardly mobile, a GP may have only a few elderly patients while in other areas where the community is becoming ever more elderly, he may have many. Comparisons must be made and allowances built into the system.
I heard what the Minister said about the emergency doctor service. I do not knock that service, even though it is privatised. I would rather have a doctor in the surgery

who is fresh then a doctor who had answered four or five calls the night before. We should examine the deputising service and in some cases encourage it, provided that the doctor does not lose contact with his patients or simply take the easy option. Doctors in the deputising service go out with a driver. Doctors may be afraid to go to areas with a high level of crime and drug problems. There have already been reports of assaults on doctors. Doctors have been called out by a bogus caller and assaulted for their drugs when they arrived in the street where they were expected. At least if doctors go on emergency calls with a driver, they will have some back-up.
I hope that the Minster for Health will examine thoroughly all the matters to which I referred, particularly the problems in inner-city areas, and that she and her colleagues will see that there are vast differences even within tightly knit communities.

Mr. Michael Morris: I deeply regret having to speak and vote against the regulations. I do not vote against my party lightly, particularly on an issue that involves my family, whom I try to keep out of politics. However, occasionally one must do what one believes is right.
I declare an interest immediately and it proves that I know something about general practice. My wife has been a general practitioner for over 25 years, initially in the inner-city area of Hackney in London and for the past 16 years in Bedfordshire. At the Conservative party conference in Blackpool in 1973 she received a phone call asking her to stand in on an emergency basis in Biggleswade because there was a shortage of GPs. Blackpool conferences were different then. In those days people were allowed to speak against the motion and the debates were not fixed as they were this year. In those days speakers knew and worked in the National Health Service. This year we listened to a doctor who did not work in the National Health Service telling us how marvellous the proposed reforms were. I found that cheeky. Moreover, I understand that he is not particularly successful in private practice.
I have several other interests to declare. I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for the past 10 years and the member of that Committee who has asked the most questions about the National Health Service. The health side of what was the Department of Health and Social Security hardly covered itself in glory in the past 10 years. I expect that my colleagues on the Committee will agree that it is not an exaggeration to say that it was probably the most badly organised Department in the Civil Service. Perhaps now that we have an independent Department of Health, that will change. It certainly needs to do so. I also serve on the Council of Europe's health committee and I advise two pharmaceutical companies. I think that I can claim to know at least as much as the Secretary of State about the National Health Service.
The negotiations for the new contract have followed a familiar pattern. First, the Department issued a set of proposals. The Secretary of State has often been at pains to tell us how long the negotiations have lasted. After all this time and with so many civil servants and officials who are doctors in the Department, one would think that the initial cockshy would be somewhere near a contract that would be acceptable to all parties. But what did we have


in February? We had far-reaching proposals for changing both the terms of service and the remunerative system of general practice. My hon. Friends seem to forget the juxtaposition of those factors.
The changes in the terms of service—one of the key platforms—were to include no opting out of the 24-hours-a-day cover, which is right, and direct consultation in the surgery for at least 20 hours per week spread over five days. The Department seemed to forget about home visits. Doctors were to be required to live within a reasonable but undefined distance of the surgery. Several other conditions, which are well known to my colleagues, included regular medical assessments, practice leaflets, and production of annual reports. I listened to my colleagues with some incredulity. I wonder how many of them have read the statutory instrument issued by the Department of Health which sets down the required content of annual reports. They are to be long. Perhaps some of us should write a similar annual report for our constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do, every four years."] Some of us do it more often than annually. Changes in the percentage of the square footage of a surgery devoted to the reception, surgery or nurses' surgery cannot be of the least relevance. Other questions have to be answered in the annual report, the purpose of which is questionable. Family practitioner committees will have to be informed of other professional commitments. That is perfectly fair.
The changes to the remuneration system altered 50 per cent. of the revenue of an average GP's practice. The Department was not simply tinkering at the fringes of the regulations; it introduced a wholesale change in remuneration. Out went seniority, group practice allowance, vocational training allowance, postgraduate training allowance, supplementary basic practice allowance, supplementary capitation, cervical cytology fees and child immunisation fees. On top of that, the basic practice allowance, night visit fees and rural practice payments were changed. That is a long list. In came capitation fees of 60 per cent. We have all heard a great deal about advisers in recent weeks. Advisers have suggested that 60 per cent. will be only the start. Will it be 70 per cent. in a few years' time and 80 per cent. a few years later? My hon. Friend the Minister must state that 60 per cent. will be the maximum and that it will not be changed.
The proposals state that in order to receive full remuneration a doctor must have 1,500 patients, reach cervical cytology and immunisation targets, provide annual check-ups for the over-75s, medicals for newly registered patients and medical assessments every three years for patients aged 16 to 74, undertake minor surgery, organise health promotion clinics, establish staff training, produce a practice leaflet, provide an annual report, accept child surveillance responsibilities, attend specified postgraduate training sessions and carry out night visits on a practice roster.
It does not end there. Last year, I was happy to support the changes to fees and allowances that were incorporated in the Health and Medicines Act 1988. I have long believed that that element of GP work should be cash-limited. However, this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend said that there will be a review not just of new ancillary staff but of existing staff. When a nurse leaves a practice, the family practitioner committee will have the right to say to the doctor, "You may not have another nurse." I very much hope that that dimension, which has not been highlighted, will be dropped.
The Health and Medicines Act also contains provisions relating to isolated general practices and computerisation. The Bill that will come before the House in a few months' time will impinge on general practice. The main items for discussion are practice budgets for those with over 11,000 patients, particularly drug budgets, the medical audit and the recomposition and reorganisation of the FPCs. Each will lead to a new list of proposals before their introduction.
Throughout the summer months there was negotiation under duress. I met the Secretary of State several times. By August, there was a second edition of the contract. Seniority payments were mixed up with postgraduate allowances and seniority payments. The new two-tier system relating to cervical cytology and child immunisation is to be welcomed, but it is compulsory and will create problems in towns and cities that have large ethnic populations. That issue must be addressed.
Promises were made about rural practice payments, adjustments to the basic practice allowance and transitional payments to help small practices. That is greatly to be welcomed. The point that I made in an intervention about the 26 hours and five days need to be examined. The majority of general practices do not have access to a standby deputising service. It is all very well for hon. Members with inner-city seats to assume that all general practices have a deputising service. In many areas of the country they do not. It cannot be right, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, that any general practitioner should be on call for 12 days before he gets a break.
All this starts on 1 April 1990. The White Paper proposals to which I referred start a year later. That, by any yardstick, is a pretty tight timetable. It would have been better to roll it out as we went along, but my right hon. and learned Friend has decided otherwise. All these changes to the terms of service will have to be brought about in each surgery in fewer than six months. What other business would be expected to face a 50 per cent. change in its revenue within six months?
Family doctors are already busy people, as are their ancillary staff, but they will have to modernise and introduce computers. What, however, are the facts? Only 25 per cent. of general practices are fully computerised, and only a tiny percentage of FPCs have packages available to control everything from the other end. Those of us who are involved in health matters have received a mailing shot about an argument between the Department of Health and the private companies that are producing the software for the 25 per cent. of general practices that use computers. If something is to be up and running by next April, there should be no argument about who owns the software, with the GPs perhaps having to buy it off the particular company involved. I hope that when she winds up, the Minister for Health will deal with that point. It is absolutely central to getting everything moving by 1 April 1990.
All these changes are supposed to produce value for money, but can one find the figures? The only figure that I have found in either the first or second edition of the contract is the 50 per cent. reduction in the benefit that is to be paid to general practitioners. That is on record. As soon as the terms of service are in writing—I shall be grateful to know whether they are yet in writing and whether the red book has been updated—they will have to be priced by the review body. I hope that the statement of


fees and allowances will be available by 1 January 1990. Every practice is making its plans which will come into effect on 1 April, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that the statement of fees and allowances will be published by 1 January 1990.
There have been many changes to the administrative and clinical system. GPs can do without the additional problem of having to speculate about revenue. No one should be expected to negotiate for half the final package just on faith. Is the Minister able to say what the cost of the changes will be? I know that the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, will investigate that question with interest. It is only right that we should have the Government's forecast of the cost of the changes.
Very welcome though the new Minister for Health is at the Department, she will have to tighten things up a bit. Following the imposition of the agreement, we know that the directives on the national priorities for family practitioner committees arrived weeks late. I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has returned to the Treasury Bench. He promised to give general practitioners six months' notice of any changes. We are five months away from implementation of the scheme, so we have already lost a month.
I deplore the abuse that has been showered on hard-working general practitioners—in my constituency and by my friends. Equally, I deplore the British Medical Association's advertising campaign. I spent 20 years in advertising. The BMA should fire its agents.
I also deplore the assertion that GPs earn about £65,000 a year. That figure includes staff salaries, medical supplies and their share of medical premises expenses. They are not minor items. The taxable figure is £31,105. No Member of Parliament would expect his or her salary to be judged on a basis that included the secretarial allowance. Commentators such as Dr. Vernon Coleman in The Sun are being mischievous when they suggest a higher figure.
I deplore the lack of time, the bureaucracy that has been imposed on general practitioners, the unreality of the annual report and the intrusion into certain patients' lives, just to meet an arbitrary target. It will undermine the long-standing doctor-patient relationship which has never hitherto been based on financial considerations. That relationship is in danger of being changed. The new contract that is being imposed on GPs will not aid or improve general practice.
The passing of the regulations will be sad for general practitioners. General practice is the one part of the National Health Service that is admired the world over. The pressure that the new bureaucratic contract forces on GPs must mean that they will have less time for patients, and hence patient care. All the surveys show that every patient wants more time, not less, with his doctor. I fear that doctors who traditionally have counselled and consoled the bereaved will be forced to reduce some of that work.
This is not the freer, caring society for which I thought the Conservative party stood. I regard this as a bureaucratic system imposed from above, and I think that it should be rejected.

6 pm

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I should like to begin by quoting from a letter sent to me by Dr. Michael Wilson, who is chairman of the general medical services committee of the BMA. It puts a rather different perspective on his views from that rather misleadingly given by the Secretary of State. It says:
For the first time in the history of the health service, a Secretary of State has decided to impose his own contractual terms. There are some desirable components, but there are also important elements which are misguided and ill-conceived, for example, the target payments for immunisation and cervical cytology, and the shift towards a more capitation based payments system. Attached to this letter are more details of our views on these elements.
There have been misleading reports in the media that general practitioners would be taking industrial action as a result of this imposition. I deplore the fact that the public may have been disturbed in any way by these reports, and have written to the Secretary of State to make it clear that the BMA was not responsible for this press speculation.
At a recent meeting, the Committee decided firmly against any form of action which would be damaging to patients. In order to protect patients' interests, which remain paramount, and to sustain general practice in the NHS for the future, we will subject key aspects of the contract to a careful audit to provide us with information on the contract's defects and the problems arising from its imposition.
That paints a different picture from the one that the Secretary of State attempted to paint this afternoon.
I support most of the principles and motives underlying the contract, although I disagree profoundly with some of the changes proposed, which have not been properly thought out and will almost certainly damage rather than enhance the primary care service. The Secretary of State was good enough to acknowledge that we probably have the best primary care service in the world. We must remember that it is run very cost-effectively and that it takes only 7 per cent. of total resources devoted to health care.
There are two underlying objectives for the new contract, both of which are laudable. The first is to improve the health experience of the population, and the second is to provide a better and more uniform service. It is essential to consider the new contract in the context of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 and the Government's proposals in "Working for Patients", which contain a third objective, again with which I do not disagree, of cost containment to exert downward pressure on the inexorable increase in health care costs year on year. It does the Secretary of State no credit to suggest that that is not the case. He should defend honestly that laudable objective.
We are trying to make the service more cost-effective, and there is no doubt that the health of the British people needs to be improved. The Government have targeted immunisation in childhood and cervical screening of adult women. We now immunise against polio and diphtheria —fortunately, mainly diseases of the past—whooping cough, measles and mumps, which sadly are still subject to regular epidemics, and rubella, which is a mild disease in itself but which has horrendous consequences for the next generation if a pregnant woman has the misfortune to have an attack. Massive improvements have been made over the past decade or two. Better vaccines are available, so therefore much of the fear and prejudice associated with vaccines, particularly whooping cough vaccine, has been overcome, and there have been tremendous improvements in the methods by which we ensure that the service is


delivered to its target population. The same applies to cervical screening, which is responsible for thousands of preventable deaths every year. The failure of the present system to prevent those deaths is a national disgrace.
There is no doubt that, nationally, there is wide variation in the quality and standard of primary care and, regrettably in its accessibility. It is over a decade since Knox and others in the Dundee department of geography commented on this mismatch between the siting of GP practices in the centre of towns and the siting of the population on the periphery. Sadly, much of that problem has not yet been corrected. Housing schemes are ill-provided with basic services and do not have regular transport links to surgeries, and many people who live in them are on low incomes. I accept that inner London has particular problems that are the equal of those in smaller cities. That raises the first anomaly, because without a major effort to tackle the twin problems of multiple deprivation and poverty, all the Secretary of State's efforts in the contract are doomed to failure.
I do not propose to repeat the comments made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on the detailed proposals of the contract. I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's predicament tonight, and I welcome his rational opposition to the proposals. I see several critical deficiencies in the Secretary of State's proposals, which negate the good intentions of his objectives. He grossly understates the importance of collective, rather than individual, action in health care. That has been a major failing of the Government's philosophical approach to society since they took office, so we should not expect them to change their approach on health care.
There are long-standing deficiencies in the present service that the Secretary of State has failed to tackle, such as the fragmentation of responsibility for the community's health between district health authorities and family practitioner committees. The Minister should learn from the far superior administrative system in Scotland, where one health board is responsible for each area and provides a single coherent purpose to health care, which is sadly lacking south of the border. I shall give some examples from my county of Fife, which is a mixed agricultural and industrial region and which in many areas has massive problems associated with the recent loss of the mining industry. We have immunisation rates of well over 90 per cent. and a target of immunising 100 per cent. of children who are able to take the vaccine over the next few years.
The successful introduction of the new measles, mumps and rubella immunisation, which was piloted in the county over the past three years, is being followed in other counties and again has achieved high target success. There are lower, but still rising, figures for whooping cough. Over 75 per cent. of children are immunised against it, which compares favourably with other areas. We are proud of that success story, but it is the product of an enormous collective effort by GPs, health visitors, the community health service, health education and effective and enthusiastic leadership from the health board. The service is underpinned by an equally effective computerised call-up system, without which we would not have a hope of reaching the target population.
On cervical screening, there is a collective commitment to improving the take-up of the service, backed up by research into why women fail to attend for screening,

despite being sent an appointment and despite it having been followed up. Those facilities are starting to pay off in higher take-up rates.
Our GPs need no further incentive to improve their rates. They do not need bonus payments, which they will attract anyway because of the level of service that they are providing. They have been given the tools, support and leadership of the health board; they require no further incentive than their professional pride to ensure that standards are maintained.
Why has the Minister failed to benefit from our experience in Fife? Why is he introducing an untried alternative when there is such a patently successful system north of the border? There is no guarantee that the system that he has introduced will succeed, and he has produced no evidence to suggest that he has any expectation other than his own prejudice to support it. Are the Minister and his Department blind? Are they unable to see it? Can they not afford the eye tests which they brought in last year? Without an efficient system, the best GPs will be unable to meet their targets. The Minister's proposal is doomed before it is introduced, and he fails to realise that.
The second factor that obstructs the Minister's good intentions is the nature of the primary care system. GPs are self-employed, and that is one reason for the vast variation in standards which they apply. They can choose what level of service to give.
I thought it was a bit rich of the Minister, in reply to my earlier intervention, saying that GPs signing a contract was all that was required for family practitioner committees to ensure the proper level of service was provided.
I assure the Minister that GPs, as with any other body of people, vary in the quality of service that they give. I cannot see the FPCs following them around to see how long they spend in the car as a proportion of their 26 hours of patient commitment per week, or to see whether they finish surgery early because they are going to the golf course or somewhere else. Without a proper monitoring system, how can one say that the contract will be properly enforced?
Many GPs have a captive population of patients who are prevented, for geographical reasons, from moving to another doctor. There are few teeth in the contract to improve that.
Why does not the Minister look at the option of a salaried service in areas which have difficulty in providing a service under the present system? Why is there such a deafening silence about medical audit? I know why—it is so difficult to bring in.
Although I am a member of the medical profession, I have been a stern critic of it for the past 20 years and I have a stronger track record than the "Johnny-come-latelies" on the Conservative Benches who criticise only when they see that their own political futures could be damaged.
The Secretary of State professes to recognise the problem of working in deprived inner-city areas. Has he recognised that inner-city GPs earn well below his much-touted average earnings, let alone the combined salary that the popular press has quoted so frequently or even the average target taxable earning. We know of GPs whose take-home pay is less than £1,000 a month. Averages blur the difference between them and GPs who earn fat salaries, mostly in the home counties and in other areas where there are plenty of extra perks and extra fees to be earned. There are not many fat salaries to be earned in Tower Hamlets or in the centre of London. I can tell the


Minister that for a start. GPs there cannot afford nice premises, even if the buildings are available and if one takes into consideration the percentage of the cost which the Government so generously provide—70 per cent. I can assure the Minister that 30 per cent. of £1,000 will not provide much in the way of premises in the centre of London.
Any allowances that the Secretary of State proposes for deprived city areas will go no way towards solving those problems. GPs in those areas cannot find suitable staff to work for them. It is not a question of not being able to pay them. One of the reasons why they use deputising services so frequently, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, is that it is unsafe for them to visit many parts of the area after dark. They cannot afford to employ a driver as a bodyguard and the police are no help as they refuse to accompany them. At least with a deputising service there is a nice large driver sitting in the car downstairs to provide some form of back-up. This is another problem in the delivery of health care which is not being tackled.
It is easy for us to say that we have noble intentions with the contract, and that as long as GPs all work hard it will be all right. It will not. We have to change the system within which GPs are trying to operate; otherwise, we will not be able to change the result of what they do.
The Department of Health seems to be incapable of conducting the most elementary investigation in the real world in which GPs have to operate. The Department is bloated—although not quite so bloated as it was earlier this afternoon—by a large increase in the number of people that it employs directly in central services.
The saddest failure of these proposals is the change in the balance of remuneration between basic practice allowance and capitation fees. That will penalise the better GP who knows, because he or she faces the fact every working day, that a better, more comprehensive service is possible only with fewer patients. It is not so much that there will be a tendency for a bad GP, who gives a poor service, to attract as many patients as possible on to his or her list, as that a good GP, who wishes to reduce the number of patients on the list, will be unfairly penalised by the reduction in basic practice allowance and the move towards a larger capitation fee—unless the capitation fee is much larger than the Minister anticipates.
If GPs wish to engage another partner to provide a better service, they will suffer a catastrophic fall in income. Why has the Department of Health failed to set proper targets for list sizes? There is adequate information available to make it clear that the ideal size of a practice is between 1,200 and 1,500 patients per GP—well below the current level. I do not expect the Minister to achieve such a target overnight, but he should certainly set that target now. If the Minister's objective is to reduce list sizes to a level at which all the good things he has talked about can be achieved, he should structure the payment system in a way that will make it desirable to do so—by penalising GPs who have too many patients on their lists. I assure the Minister that GPs with a list size of more than 2,000 patients do not provide the service that he imagines they are providing.
It is not possible to do so. Is this vaunted commitment to greater care only a facade to hide his real objective of a cheaper, nastier service?
The Secretary of State has had a glorious chance to improve primary care with this contract. His failure to do so is due as much to the incompetence of his Department as to his own arrogance. I hope that it is not too late for him to think again.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I was disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). He started well, as he seemed to support just about everything that the Government are doing, but he lapsed into momentary incoherence when he talked about the catastrophic decrease in GP incomes. He overlooked the fact that the Government have said that there will be a transitional period of two years when bringing in the regulations to stop that happening. It would be helpful if right hon. and hon. Members read the regulations.

Dr. Moonie: rose——

Mr. Hayes: I shall not give way.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said.

Mr. Hayes: I have become accustomed to the fact that the BMA has done for sensible political argument what myxomatosis has done for rabbits. I found it rich that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, to give him credit, has occasional moments of lucidity, criticised my right hon. and learned Friend's handling of the GP contract. Good heavens, in 1975, 7,800 GPs sent in their resignation letters. In 1975 there was industrial action by consultants and threatened industrial action by junior doctors.
I have always assumed that the House of Commons went barking mad only towards the end of July. It appears that there is also barking madness during the spillover period.
The House should analyse carefully, precisely what the Opposition and some of the other parties are voting against. They are voting against "Promoting Better Health," against the White Paper that received much professional acclaim, and against a higher capitation fee for rundown areas. They are voting against giving women doctors the opportunity of part-time work—not just half the hours but a quarter, which has never been in any contract before.
The Opposition are voting against screening and preventive medicine. They are voting against giving every person over 75 on a doctor's list the opportunity of getting a visit from either a GP or a member of the practice team. That is remarkable. They are voting against immunisation targets—for example, rubella immunisations, about which the hon. Member for Kircaldy talked. Our immunisation figures are appalling compared with World Health Organisation statistics. Surely setting targets is the way forward to protect our young people.
The Opposition are voting against payments to GPs for minor surgery and against the postgraduate training allowance. That does not seem to make any sense.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Rubbish.

Mr. Hayes: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered in from the streets, should come into the Chamber and say, "Rubbish." It is nice that there


are now four Opposition Members here during this debate on an Opposition prayer. However, I should not be too critical and try to score too many party political points.
These sensible measures were recommended by the BMA's negotiating committee. If only the BMA had not played such a foolish political game by winding up its members to such a degree that they believed that any contract from the Department of Health came from the jaws of Hades, there would not be such a mess and misunderstanding.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is in a mess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is too much sedentary noise from so few people.

Mr. Hayes: What quality sedentary noise it is from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)! They say that empty vessels make the most noise.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is an empty vessel.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Kircaldy accuses me of being an empty vessel. His vessel is very full indeed, by the sound of it.

Dr. Moonie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members refer to my constituency, is it not in order for them to pronounce it correctly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will correct the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Hayes: I hope that I will pronounce the name correctly, especially as my parents have just moved to Scotland. The Conservative party has a great interest in Scotland.
The only difficulty of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should be aware is targeting. Many general practitioners throughout the country to whom I and many of my colleagues have had the opportunity of speaking are worried about targeting because they feel that they are meeting their targets now. They are worried that when they go to the family practitioner committees they will find that the family practitioner computer has gone horribly wrong. I ask for an initiative from the Department to ensure that FPCs get their act together to help GPs to look after their patients in the best way.
The Opposition are voting against some very sensible preventive health measures. I regret that. I am sure that my hon. Friends will join me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in supporting these health measures, which will help patients in our constituencies.

Mr. John Battle: We should take the contract in the full context of the Government's health policy. Last weekend, the Government announced that 11 health districts would be chosen to carry out some comparisons of practice, as a prelude to introducing the White Paper proposals on the NHS. We had hoped that the Government could agree that it was crucial to have a comprehensive evaluation before any of their health proposals were implemented. Like others, we have regularly suggested that such an evaluation should include fuller assessments of health needs, especially assessments

that are locally and regionally sensitive. I say that as one who represents Leeds, West, which includes a section of the inner city.
In August, in response to the publication of the monitoring report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on infant and perinatal mortality, the former Minister for Health rejected further research on the wider social causes of ill health. He contemptuously dismissed regional and social factors. The principles in the contract, in terms of the index of social deprivation proposals, will be undermined because that research has not been carried out.
We all accept that any serious and major reform always involves risks, but it also imposes costs. It is difficult to carry out a genuine reform on the basis of a reduction in service. Unless an evaluation is carried out at an earlier stage, major mistakes, which later need correcting, may be made. The impression is that the reviews, and the contract as the vanguard for them, will set cash limits in concrete.
I remember the early days when the Departments of Health and Social Security were one Department. There are echoes now of what happened then. We were promised the great social security reviews—with the tag, of course, that they would be at nil cost, which in practice meant that they were reviews with a reduction. We all know of the great suspicion that this measure will end up as a cost-cutting exercise. To see this, we need simply to glance at the Government's practice, at the experience of cash limits which were imposed on, for example, the social fund. Budgets initially set at the centre included built-in factors based upon a declining take-up. Such approaches end in a reduction in service to the people and undermine sensitivity to local needs and demands. The people in need are left out. At the heart of the Government's approach is the issue of cost-benefit analysis. It may satisfy accountants, but it does not serve human needs. Emphasis on quantity can undermine the quality of provision. It may be forgotten that the purpose of the exercise is to serve people.
I am reminded of the inner-city initiative during the late 1970s and early 1980s. A former Secretary of State for the Environment introduced the urban programme monitoring initiative. That showed an obsession with monitoring on a quantitative basis, annual reports and micro-levels of accountancy, which resulted in officers being instructed to count the number of trees in environment improvement schemes and to send the information back in a report to the Department of the Environment. Pensioners in mini-buses provided to take them to luncheon clubs had to fill in journey measurement and time sheets. That was not the practical purpose of the programme, but is that the kind of contract monitoring which is envisaged in these proposals?
We are moving in a direction where "Yes, Minister" becomes real life, but it is a little too close to reality. I remember one of the "Yes, Minister" programmes about a totally efficient hospital which had a brilliant input and output ratio. In average accountancy terms, it ran perfectly—because it had no patients, as it had not yet opened. Unfortunately, patients would have messed up the ledger entries. Perhaps it is therefore better not to include patients at all. Human beings with whom we are dealing are not totally efficient animals.
Turning to the specifics of the doctors' contract, the Secretary of State might tell us what the assessment of the family doctors' future role in health care is. The emphasis


is emerging in the community care proposals, with which we have yet to deal. The change will surely shift the work in the direction of local GPs because there will be fewer people in hospitals and institutions. We are told that there will be a welcome emphasis on prevention, health
How much space will there be in the contract for home visits? Will the system simply be based on a bonus payments approach, or will there be a genuine increase in service provision, as is needed? Several questions will arise. Will the need for GPs to pay attention to costs, budgets and annual reports distract them from the quality of care that they offer? Will the paperwork and accounting reduce patient contact time? Will the good intentions of dealing with primary preventive care be undermined by budget considerations and bureaucratic proposals?
There seems to be further contradiction when we take the contract in the context of the Government's proposals. What is proposed for the doctors is to challenge their autonomy and unaccountability in the contract. However, under the proposal for hospitals there is a real possibility that self-governing hospital trusts will become privatised and independent, as is being proposed at the Leeds general infirmary. In other words, there will be a fragmenting of local provision, which contradicts the Government's approach to doctors' practices. On the one hand, they say standardise and on the other they say opt-out. When their proposals are put together, collective and co-ordinated provision in the Health Service will be undermined.
We welcome the introduction of child health surveillance services. Let us hope that that will not be dealt with simply in terms of remuneration. It will increase the work load, but more importantly, it should recognise that there are unequal starting points in the country's health provision. If we study birth weights, it becomes more than obvious that good health is not evenly distributed throughout the nation. The strains on some health authorities are greater than on others. The recent OPCS report on baby deaths published in August highlighted that the health divide between Britain's more prosperous regions and the poorer regions is growing wider. Although the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales in 1988 was 8·7 per thousand and the infant mortality rate was nine per thousand, the regional breakdown shows big variations throughout the country within that improving trend.
The Select Committee on Social Services said last December that Britain's infant mortality record is not improving as fast as it should. The Committee called for further research into the links between baby deaths and social deprivation. That research has yet to be initiated by the Secretary of State. That sensitivity to an area analysis demands a much more comprehensive approach before the contract can be introduced.
There is also the question of interpreting and enforcing the contract. If a GP wants to increase his list size, he would do best by attracting fit and healthy patients whom he sees rarely and who make few demands on his time. The long-term sick will be more time-consuming and he will do better if he refers them to another GP down the road. That is a perversion of the provision of health care to those who need it.
Not every person in Britain has an address as some are homeless and others live in hostels and accommodation

for the homeless. What is the provision in the contract for them? It is, incredibly difficult to arrange doctor provision for hostels in order to provide care for the homeless or mentally ill.
On enforcement, we have a stark reminder of what happened to the nurses. This morning I received a letter from a nurse in my constituency. She asked what will happen to community staff and especially preventive medicine. She said that she had been a health visitor and that she does two district jobs—she is both a specialist in diabetes and a mothers and babies health visitor. However, she is still waiting for her grade to be settled. She sees others doing less and with fewer qualifications moving to the H grade. We have a long way to go before the contract can be settled. If the experience of the nurses is anything to go by, we will have to wait years for implementation to be sorted out if the proposal is not first solidly thought through.
In their eagerness to transfer social costs into market prices, the Government manage to demonstrate gross insensitivity to the detailed effects of their proposals. Our challenge is to a Government who seem to be entranced by the business man's ethic of profit. The euphemism is now the "discipline of the market". In the current edition of The Salisbury Review I was interested to read an article by Ian Crowther entitled: "Thatcherism and the Good Life. "He said:
A modern business enterprise, by its very nature, has as its highest goal the maximisation of profit; what it provides in the way of goods or services is secondary. But to force this commercial model on every other species of corporate life—for example, on public service broadcasting, the health service, the legal profession and the universities—is to betray either an indifference to non-economic motives or an ignorance of how in reality they are sustained. If it is obvious—as surely it must be, that the highest loyalty of a soldier or a policeman or a fireman can never be to material gain, it should be hardly less obvious that there are others in the community—among them dons, doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers—whose character would be altered irrevocably and for the worst if the pursuit of profit, instead of being incidental to their professions, were to be made central to them. Britain would be the poorer, literally, if millions of its citizens did not still think of service as the primary and profit as the secondary motivation in their working lives.
That they do so is testimony to the truth that man is not just an economic being but a moral, social and political being as well.
I would have hoped that those were the motives driving the Government but we know that that is not the case. However, perhaps the Government will bear in mind the parallel with the poll tax. We reminded the Government that if it was not thought out it would be brought back time and again with alterations.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is a solitary figure on the Opposition Back Benches and he is trying to spin out the debate for the Opposition. However, even his colleagues are not listening. I would be grateful if you would bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the NHS contract.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that the time available for the debate is very short.

Mr. Battle: Perhaps Conservative Members do not like to hear what I have said. However, they might learn that when points are put to them in advance of the legislation it may save the country from the turmoil it is experiencing with the poll tax. I hope that they will withdraw the


contract. If they do not, the British people will pass judgment at the appropriate time and elect a Government who adopt a different approach from the market-driven one of the present Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have only a few seconds in which to participate in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his positive and rather more agreeable presentation of the Government's case on the GP contract. I only wish that what he said had carried a majority of not only general practitioners but the people of the country.
As yet, my right hon. and learned Friend does not carry a majority of either doctors or the people in what he is seeking to do in the contract—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) points out that he may obtain that majority in the future but he does not have it now. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the contract is somewhat misguided.
I have grave reservations about the increased percentage of doctors' remuneration that will come from capitation. It will go up from 46 per cent. to 60 per cent. I have performed considerable service on the Select Committee for Social Services and I can say from experience that one of the greatest services a doctor can provide is not minor operations, immunisation or screening but the counselling and advice that he gives either on a visit or in his surgery. The contract will lead to a position in which doctors have less time to spend with individual patients rather than more.
My remarks have been much supported by the Select Committee. If my right hon. and learned Friend reads our latest report—the eighth report—he will see that we say on page 38:
A number of observers indicated their concern that increasing the proportion of GP income from capitation payments and the introduction of indicative drugs budgets could mean GPs will pay greater attention to the workload and financial implications of having some groups of patients on their lists.
I have said that to my right hon. and learned Friend before. The report continues:
They indicated that this could mean refusals to accept elderly or chronic sick patients who apply to join the practice.
My right hon. and learned Friend assured the Committee:
the Government intend to minimise this likelihood and that the number of chronically sick could be taken into account in determining actual or indicative GP budgets
However, I must point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that the working paper on GP budgets does not explain how such patients will be defined and identified. Our views were strongly supported by the Health Visitors Association and by others such as the Faculty of Community Medicine, so we are not speaking in isolation.
Indicative drug budgets are another relevant issue. Clearly, there is downward pressure from Government on the cost of drugs, but surely effective prescribing should not be judged in terms of medicine costs only. Medicines provide excellent value for money compared with many other forms of treatment. Keeping patients out of hospitals or out of community care by appropriate medical treatment is both socially and economically advantageous. I hope that the emphasis on capitation and the

Government's clear move to cost-limiting and cost-fencing the family doctor services will not lead to a less good service than we have at present. For the reasons I have expressed and for others that I have not time to express, I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I warmly congratulate the new Minister for Health on her appointment and on her involvement in the debate.
The debate has been useful in sounding a cautionary note for the future of the family doctor service and I hope that the Government will take heed. We are debating today the effects that we think the new GP contract may have. It could mean that patients have less time with their doctors, when we all know that they want more time and should have more time. It could mean elderly and chronically ill patients being culled from their GPs' lists. It could mean a widening gap between the service that one receives if one lives in a well-heeled suburb and the service provided in a deprived, inner-city area. It could also mean that patients have less chance to choose a woman GP, and there is much to justify those concerns.

Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I will not give way because I want to justify our concerns.
The Secretary of State flatly denies those concerns and simply asserts that patients will receive better care. However, if he is confident of his case and certain that his predictions about the beneficial effects of the contract will be justified, let him give the House the following assurances. He must monitor what happens to list sizes and not talk merely about average list sizes. He must monitor the length of consultations and what is happening to immunisation and screening. He must monitor the number of women GPs, the ability of the elderly and the chronically ill to have the GP of their choice and the gap between the inner cities and the suburbs. He must give the House and members of the public a commitment that, if his contract has the effect that we fear, and which he denies, he will come back to the House and amend the regulations.
The main concern expressed this afternoon has been that the effect of the new contract will be that patients have less time with their doctor. Once again, the Secretary of State has asserted that that will not be the case, but there is a widespread belief that an increase in the capitation element of a GP's income will lead to an increase in list sizes, and that an increase in list sizes will lead to less tame for each patient. That view is shared by Which? magazine, the magazine of the Consumers' Association, by the Select Committee on Social Services, about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke, and by the Patients Association.
The Secretary of State responds by saying that none of that will happen because we shall have the same number of GPs and patients, so average list sizes and consultation time will remain the same. The Secretary of State is content to say in defence of his contract merely that average list sizes will stay the same. Previously, the Government had supported a reduction in list sizes—a trend which had been supported by successive Governments—yet that aim


appears to have vanished today. We are talking only about whether we can prevent list sizes from increasing as a result of the contract.
We need to continue to reduce list sizes because it is only with smaller list sizes that doctors will be able to expand their preventive work and health promotion work. It is only with smaller list sizes that they will be able to play a real part in providing care in the community and to respond to the demands of patients which have rightly increased. In the past 10 years, the average number of visits made by patients to their doctors has increased by 35 per cent. That is one statistic that we never hear from the Government.
Above all, the Government should be presenting measures to reduce list sizes and to increase the time each patient has with his GP because that is what patients want, as all surveys show. Most notably, the Which? survey discovered that more than 90 per cent. in its survey listed time with their GP as their priority. However, it is clear that the proposals will not increase patient time and that is disappointing.
Worse still, there are good grounds for believing that patients will have less time with their GP. Increasing the fee per patient—which is what the capitation element is—as a percentage of doctors' incomes provides doctors with a direct incentive to take on more patients. The Government have been muddled about that. In July, the Secretary of State said:
It is totally illogical to suggest that the new contract will increase average list sizes.
However, in October he said:
We fully recognise that the high capitation element in the new remuneration system does not favour small list practices.
That is the case, because if one gives a financial incentive for doctors to increase their list size, they will do so, as GPs themselves believe. The widely held view is that increased list sizes will result not in doctors working longer, but in patient consultation time becoming shorter.
The Department of Health report on GP weekly work loads in 1987 showed that they spent about 38 hours seeing patients, plus 31 hours on call and six hours on other medically related work. If GPs work more hours, the quality of patient care will not improve. I do not want to see GPs dropping asleep in their surgeries in the same way that we see junior hospital doctors dropping asleep in the wards. General practitioners already have a full working week, yet under the contract they will be expected to take on more patients, to perform minor surgery, to carry out regular checks on the elderly, to carry out more immunisation and more childhood screening, to run anti-smoking clinics, alcohol control clinics and well person clinics, and to advise on diet, exercise and stress. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out, they will be expected to do all that in addition to taking on extra patients to increase their income.
If the best doctors attract larger lists, it will turn good doctors into bad doctors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said. The number of GPs is not fixed, as the Secretary of State would like to make out. Therefore, his argument about the average does not hold. GP numbers could quickly drop if demoralisation sets in again. Once again, general practice could become an

unattractive option. Women could get squeezed out, and earlier retirement could certainly mean a reduction in the number of GPs.
Only one in four GPs are women. That means that many women patients do not have the chance to choose a woman doctor and, therefore, must have a male GP. We need to continue the trend of an increasing number of women becoming GPs, but the contract threatens to reduce the number of women GPs. We must examine the figures. Women and men GPs have different working patterns. There is no such thing as the average GP. There is the woman GP's working patterns, hours and list sizes and then there is the male GP's profoundly different working pattern, hours, and list sizes. An effect of the contract—no doubt in an effort to squeeze out lazy and uncommitted GPs—is that the Government will squeeze out those women GPs who have fewer patients on their lists and work fewer hours. The reason why they work fewer hours is that women GPs, like most working women, must combine their work with their family responsibilities, whereas male GPs, like most men, leave family responsibilities to their wives.
If we are concerned to increase the number of women GPs, we must not discriminate against people for having smaller list sizes and working fewer hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned differences in care in inner cities and suburbs.
I now refer to the hidden agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was absolutely right. The Government think that the family doctor service is costing too much. Cash limiting——

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) should afford so little time to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom all hon. Members are waiting to hear with the greatest impatience?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Lady is watching the clock, as are all hon. Members. This debate must end at 7 o'clock.

Ms. Harman: It would be right to divide the time between myself and the Minister.
The problem is the hidden agenda. The hidden agenda is about public spending. The Government think that the family doctor service is costing too much. They are cash-limiting support staff and drug budgets, and they are encouraging GP budget holders to opt for cash limited budgets. Their ultimate aim, of which the contract is part, is to increase list sizes and to reduce the number of GPs and, as a result, reduce public spending on the family doctor service.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I thank hon. Members for their kind and undeserved comments. I am delighted to take on this role. I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who magnificently piloted the Children Bill through the House. It is a Bill in which I had a special and particular interest.
I cannot fail to be aghast at the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). She had her eye on the wrong target. She represents a constituency in which I worked for many years. I know directly the difference


between the best of the good general practice, which demonstrates the excellent service provided by a family practitioner, and the general practitioner who is not available, who uses an answering service and who does not provide all that the hon. Lady and I want for those in the inner cities. Many hon. Members have referred to the particular problems of the inner cities, and that is why a special premium is to be available in those areas. The key must he how we can ensure that our family practitioners, who are one of the most important elements in our National Health Service, can play a fundamental part in primary health care and can achieve the standards which all of us want.
Before discussing the regulations, I must pay a tribute to the other members of the practice and primary health care team. I was not particularly sympathetic when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) dismissively referred to other members of the team. Frankly, a chiropodist, a clinic nurse, a counsellor and many community nurses can play a crucial part in improving patients' well-being.
Were the hon. Lady to have castigated the Government for failing to have refined the regulations and the contract for the past 25 years, she would have been nearer the mark. But to become agitated about the fact that now, at last, the Government are facing the responsibility of specifying precisely what we want general practitioners to do can only be a virtue and a force for good in the welfare of our people. Can it be wrong for any mother to know that children are to be more vigorously assessed, that their development is to be checked, and that immunisation is to be robustly pursued? Too many people are fearful of medical practices generally, and anything that we can do to encourage general practitioners to pursue the World Health Organisation targets and to look to the welfare of their patients must be good.
Can there be any objection to women having cervical cytology robustly pursued and ensuring that targets are met? I spent many years as the vice-president of the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. In years gone by, had we thought that general practitioners would have reached targets like these, we would have welcomed them. Can there be anything objectionable in knowing that elderly relations will be visited? How many people over 75 are fearful of contacting their general practitioners and feel that they do not want to trouble them with their ailments? Often those over 75 can have their lives significantly improved and their medical conditions addressed by a visit and by assessment. That is welcome indeed. Time and again, the Foundation for Age Research has said that relatively simple medical treatments can often improve and enhance the quality of life for our elderly.
Can anybody object to payments for training and education? Anybody who examines the British National Formulary will see the speed with which medication and technical science have moved forward. Having served on the Medical Research Council, I know the speed of change and the importance of making sure that our general practitioners are promoting and encouraging the most up-to-date and best practice.
As patients, all of us have rising expectations about what we want from our medical practitioners. The contract is about promoting patients' choice, providing information, and letting patients choose who they go to. That is the answer to those who fear the capitation allowances. The crucial point is that people should know

what is available and how much patients welcome the move towards greater health promotion and disease prevention. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has done a great deal to promote and encourage awareness of the importance of health promotion. How many people welcome the possibility of regular lifestyle checks and scrutiny when they go to their general practitioner?
I have not delayed the House in speaking about the role of women doctors. They have a crucial part to play. I welcome the fact that 50 per cent. of medical students and 40 per cent. of trainees are women. Many of the steps that we are taking are good news for women. Above all, the patient—the consumer who, too often, is not regarded—will be able to say, "I want to see a woman doctor." That will work as fast as any of our other objectives at ensuring that women doctors are available and have a crucial part to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) spoke about the information that was forthcoming. I can tell him that the statement of fees and allowances, the red book, will be available later this month—well ahead of the schedule that he anticipated. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is shortly to make a statement about information technology in general practice.
We want to ensure the well-being and safety of our Health Service. General practitioners have a crucial and vital part to play in primary health care. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has spent many hours in discussion. The regulations and the new contract provide the basis for an effective service that takes care of patients. I urge hon. Members to vote agains—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [27 October]: —

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 319.

Division No. 365]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Hilary
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beggs, Roy
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Doran, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth






Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Morley, Elliot


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Galloway, George
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, Dr John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Geraint
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


Illsley, Eric
Sillars, Jim


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kennedy, Charles
Steinberg, Gerry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wall, Pat


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Walley, Joan


McAllion, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


Macdonald, Calum A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McFall, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Wigley, Dafydd


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Madden, Max
Wilson, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wray, Jimmy


Martlew, Eric
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Meale, Alan
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Michael, Alun





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert





Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Amos, Alan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gow, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hague, William


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Harris, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Irving, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, James


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knox, David





Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Lang, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Latham, Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Lawrence, Ivan
Moss, Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Mudd, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Neale, Gerrard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Nelson, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Neubert, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lord, Michael
Norris, Steve


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Oppenheim, Phillip


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Page, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Maclean, David
Patnick, Irvine


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Madel, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Malins, Humfrey
Pawsey, James


Mans, Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Maples, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Marland, Paul
Porter, David (Waveney)


Marlow, Tony
Portillo, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Powell, William (Corby)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Price, Sir David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Mates, Michael
Redwood, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Rhodes James, Robert


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Riddick, Graham


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mellor, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Miller, Sir Hal
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mills, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Rost, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Rowe, Andrew


Moate, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela





Ryder, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thorne, Neil


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shelton, Sir William
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfleld)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes: 


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I call Mr. Kevin Barron on a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice that I wanted to raise a point of order on this issue.
You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on Second Reading of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill on 22 June 1988 I raised a point of order about meetings that had taken place between the Secretary of State for Transport and the promoters of the Bill, Associated British Ports. On that occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker rightly ruled:
Discussions that may have taken place outside the House are not a matter for the Chair."—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1187]
It is my understanding that, following a meeting between my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Energy, the Leader of the House and myself in July, an approach was made to Associated British Ports. They then made an approach to Parliament, and I understand that that approach may have gone, directly or indirectly, to the Chairman of Ways and Means. That suggests to me and to many others than a Government Department has interfered directly with this private Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I rise on a point of order because those discussions did not take place outside the House.
They have taken place in high office. I should like a ruling to be made about whether there are the fingerprints of a Government Department on this Bill. Perhaps it should not fall within the private Bill procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in supposing that the ruling is exactly the same. As he knows, a Committee has considered the private Bill procedure, so he can pursue the matter in whatever way he thinks appropriate. The points which he has made would be entirely in order in the debate on the suspension motion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter for you

because under the private Bill procedure there is not supposed to be whipping. I have heard people talk about the pairing system—although I have not been involved myself—and I know that it does not apply to the private Bill procedure because the Opposition and the Government are not involved. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, it is significant that the Secretary of State for Energy and the Leader of the House at that time—I know that there have been many changes since then, but in July two people were allocated to those posts—met the miners group to discuss this Bill's future. When that happened, the Bill was taken out of private Bill procedure.
Anybody can look at the matter in any way he or she likes, but the moment that those two Government spokespersons met the miners group they invalidated the private Bill procedure. As soon as those discussions took place in the room of the Leader of the House—not somewhere outside the building—the matter was removed from the private Bill procedure.
If the Government and their Ministers could manage to stop the Bill from proceeding in July, they have every justification—we have even more—for saying to the nation, the miners and others affected that the Bill is very flawed. It was flawed at the beginning because it was political from the outset. The person who took the Chair when the Bill was discussed voted to ensure that not one amendment went through. The Chairman is an adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, which has as one of its members a firm which is helping to sponsor the Bill.
When all those facts are considered, together with the South African connection, the fact that Conservative Members are being paid to take free trips to South Africa to help get the Bill through and the fact that we now have a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion whereas when the Bill started its passage through Parliament there was a balance of payments surplus, it becomes clear that the Bill should be thrown out. It will add a tremendous amount of money to the balance of payments.
For all those reasons, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be totally justified in saying today that the Bill is flawed and should be withdrawn. If Conservative Members want to bring it forward in the next Session, they should start at the beginning and not be allowed to obviate that by a carry-over motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This debate has got off to a good start. The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have raised perfectly legitimate points. My only complaint is that they were not points of order but matters for debate. It would be better if, instead of prefacing the debate with points of order, we got on with it along the lines which have so far been wholly in order.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the Bill was introduced I asked whether it was a hybrid Bill. The Chair ruled that it was not hybrid because the Clerk to the Private Bill Committee looked at it and told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chairman of Ways and Means that it was perfectly proper and fell within the private Bill procedure. It was impossible for us to question the Clerk any more because he left soon after.
When we raised the matter of the Bill's hybridity, there was nothing at that time to indicate Government involvement. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who controls private Bills, has the power, if ever a Bill becomes suspect, to take the appropriate action to remedy the procedure. In the circumstances which have prevailed since the Bill was first introduced, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule that the Bill has obviously become hybrid? Therefore, will you withdraw the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no change in the Bill's structure. The previous proceedings have been in order. We are now dealing with the suspension motion and I hope that we shall come to that so that we can continue to hear the arguments for and against it.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but in addition to considering whether the Bill should continue its passage, the House should be mindful of the fact that we are supposed to be a debating Chamber. When the House last considered the Bill, the only speech in favour of it was one of about 27 words by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I accept that his contribution covered about four columns of Hansard; there were 14 words in the first bit and 10 or 11 in the second.
I am making a serious point. If the House spends hours and hours debating a Bill and those in favour of it can move it formally, even though they do not have the support of all their hon. Friends—the only Conservative Member to speak, with perhaps one exception, opposed the Bill as we do——it brings the House into disrepute. It allows us to suggest not merely that we should refuse to allow the Bill to be carried over, but that it should be reviewed and revised before any hon. Member has the gall to present a similar measure in another Session.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he helps me by suggesting, as I have said, that the sooner we get on to discussing the suspension motion the better.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an important question: an this sitting be adjourned until the Secretary of State for Energy comes and says why, in a letter to me on 26 July, he said that all the coal which was produced would be burnt, whereas a Cabinet document shows that 30,000 miners will be sacked in three years?
When we spoke about this Bill we were not aware of those facts. Therefore, it is right and proper that this debate should be adjourned or the Secretary of State for Energy should come and tell us which is the true document. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) would not have moved the Bill if he thought that 30,000 miners would be compulsorily sacked within three years. Therefore, can any action be taken along the lines I have requested?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a helpful point and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I noticed that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was rising; no doubt he wishes to speak to the suspension motion. I also noticed that there was a Minister on the Treasury Bench. The sooner we move on to the suspension motion the sooner we shall hear what those two hon. Members have to say, should they rise to speak.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an awful smell in this place tonight. It stinks to high heaven. There is something crooked about what is going on and the smell is coming from the Conservative Benches. You know as well as we know what Conservative Members are up to.
I have been sent here by my constituents and they tell me that they do not like what is going on on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Mine is a mining constituency, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has just said about the report on further pit closures and job losses makes matters worse.
There is no doubt that the Government are pulling a fast one and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should take note of what we are saying. You saw it with your own eyes when they rolled in the payroll vote and they have a South African mouthpiece who is yawping like billy-oh, not only in here but outside. He stops me in the corridors and talks to me about it. I ask him how many times he has been to South Africa. He has been more than half a dozen times.
This smells; it really stinks. If the Government get away with this move, it will be at the expense of the British mining industry and the jobs in it, particularly in my constituency. I do not like it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You should take note of what we are saying. I am not criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means; he has a job to do.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is the point of order?

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is always raising points of order and more often than not Mr. Speaker has to slap him down because he does not have one.
What I am saying is that this place stinks. The Bill should not be on today's Order Paper. We should not be discussing it tonight. The Government should do the right thing and damn well drop it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The points that the hon. Gentleman has made are perfectly in order in debate, but they are not points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise a number of points with you. First, in view of the association of the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee with the promoters. which has been the subject of previous points of order, would you be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to the carry-over motion so that it can be examined by the Committee and a recommendation made to the House? That would be the best way of proceeding in these difficult circumstances.
Secondly, the provision of trips to South Africa has been mentioned on several occasions. It appears that the Bill would give an advantage to enterprises in that benighted country to export coal to Britain. I should have thought that that raised the question of a fiduciary interest, as "Erskine May" has defined it.
I would like a clear ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it can be established that people have received any sort of inducement to go to South Africa, any travel facilities or hospitality, or if anybody has received any sort of assistance tonight—rumours of champagne parties and facilities to keep Members of Parliament here are circulating around the House—that that would constitute a fiduciary interest and would prevent Members of Parliament from voting on the Bill.
I have raised such matters many times before and I know that the general rubric is that it is up to individual hon. Members of Parliament. That standard is not good enough when this place requires local councillors to make specific declarations and does not even allow them to be present in the committee rooms of council chambers. It is incumbent on the Chair to maintain the standards of the House, which should be such that we can tell local authorities that we have at least the same standards as we impose upon them.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make it clear, as was made clear by Mr. Speaker during proceedings on the Lloyd's Bill, a private Bill that was submitted in 1981, that when Lloyd's members were involved they should not vote. People who have been scurrying to the South African Government who impose apartheid and produce coal with black miners' blood should not be allowed to vote in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, it is not possible for me to accept a manuscript amendment on a suspension motion. Secondly, page 354 of "Erskine May" says:
No Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question is allowed to vote upon it; but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character.
I hope that I have answered the two points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These points of order are not an attempt to delay the proceedings of the House; they go to the heart of the integrity of the House and its business. This is not the first occasion when we have been dealing with dock legislation that we have had to raise points of order about the direct or indirect pecuniary interests of Conservative Members.
Following representations made to Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Clerk of the House over a number of weeks. It is important to set out the procedure under Standing Order No. 20 and what emerged in relation to the Committee's Chairman and the written evidence that he and others provided who, to my knowledge, have not to this day been called to give witness to that evidence or for that evidence to be checked for its veracity.
Standing Order No. 120 concerns the declaration by members of Committees on opposed Bills and says:
EACH member of a committee on an opposed private bill, or a group of private bills, shall, before he is entitled to attend and vote in such committee, sign the following declaration: —

I, having been selected by the Committee of Selection to serve as a member of the Committee on the………Bill or on Group……of Private Bills, hereby declare, that my constituents have no local interest, and that I have no personal interest, in the said bill or any bill included in the said group; and that I will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating thereto."
That is important——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear what the point of order is for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is now going over previous proceedings. He cannot do that. He must relate any point of order that he has directly to the suspension motion that is before the House.

Mr. McCartney: I can do so, and I am trying to assist in the matter. I have taken a great deal of trouble over this in my discussions with the Speaker's Office and the Clerk of the House and I would be obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would let me make the point.
Let me quote now from Hansard:
I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to speak to you."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 893.]
On two occasions the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was challenged by Members of the House. On one occasion the Deputy Speaker made it clear that the hon. Gentleman had better come back into the general discussion and he went from under the Gallery back to his place.
Subsequently, on 24 May I wrote to Mr. Speaker on Standing Order No. 120. Mr. Speaker then arranged for a series of discussions to take place between the Clerk of the House and a number of hon. Members, including myself. I was asked to produce evidence of the allegation and submitted two written statements or affidavits——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the suspension motion. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is very important that the House supports the carry-over motion—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good run on points of order. I have explained to every hon. Member who has raised a point of order that, apart from those on which I have already ruled, they are not points of order for the Chair, but are perfectly legitimate points to be raised in the debate. I suggest that it would be far better if these points were raised in speeches and not under the guise of points of order.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that my hon. Friend is referring to quite specific points of order relating to private business that require not the declaration of interest but the absence from a Committee of anyone who has any possible interest to declare. Without challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it appears that my hon. Friend has raised a most material point of order by suggesting with some validity that the hon. Member who chaired the Committee on this private Bill was out of order in doing so. It would seem to any fair-minded person that my hon. Friend raised a valid point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible at this stage to challenge the validity of previous proceedings. We are now dealing with a suspension motion. As I have told the House more than once, it is perfectly in order to raise those arguments in favour of voting against the suspension motion. That is why I said that it would be far better if those perfectly legitimate points were raised not under the guise of points of order but as part of the general debate that has been going on for quite some time.

Mr. Dobson: Surely it cannot be the case that subsequent proceedings validate those that have gone before if they were wrong. Let us suppose that in the case


of another Bill an hon. Member who sat on an opposed Bill Committee was discovered to have been receiving sums of money from the promoter in clear breach of order. Surely that would invalidate those proceedings and allow them to be questioned at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only a decision of the House could invalidate previous proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that further information has come to light which would appear to constitute a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege, he knows very well that the appropriate procedure in that case is to write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Michael Brown: As I was saying, the carry-over is required because the Third Reading of the Bill now stands adjourned. In those circumstances, it is absolutely necessary—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Skinner: People should know what is happening in this cock-eyed place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. John Cummings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order follows the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). I have a copy of a letter dated 26 July from the then Leader of the House indicating that there was a certain tonnage to be bought and burnt from British Coal. We now have in our possession the leaked Cabinet document showing the implications for coal production——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Cummings: The point is that the Leader of the House has acted with duplicity, having had possession of the document before 26 July, and he should come here tonight and explain his action in calling us into his office—at his request—to discuss these matters.

Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order could not be raised in the debate as it concerns the consequences of tonight's debate. I am the only hon. Member present who served on the Committee considering the Associated British Ports Bill. I did so believing that the Bill was about planning permission, only to find myself in the midst of one of the biggest controversies of my two and a half years in the House. I feel that I can raise a point of order in all freedom because I have no coal mining or dock interests. Bradford lost its last coal mine more than 50 years ago. The Leeds-Liverpool canal goes through part of my constituency but there is no docking, although there is a boat yard employing one and a half workers. So I do not have any pecuniary or other interests.
When we debated the Bill on Third Reading, at the end of the debate I was still on my feet. Closure was not called, and as I understand it the debate was incomplete. Had we been debating a Government Bill, presuming the unfortunate event that the suspension motion is carried tonight, I would have the Floor when Third Reading is resumed. Do we have that right on a private Bill and will that be the effect if the carry-over motion is carried tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving notice of his point of order, as that enabled me to look into it. The answer is that, if the suspension motion is carried tonight, the House would then proceed in the next Session to a Third Reading debate, and that debate would start from scratch. It would be de novo. The hon. Gentleman would be free to try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, but he would not have the Floor at the start of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For many months I have been trying desperately to make a speech on the Bill, but I cannot be called to speak because of the controversy and the continual points of order. If the motion is carried and the Bill proceeds to Third Reading, will it be guillotined, will there be some form of closure and how many hours will the Government allow us to debate the Bill? Cart all the hon. Members who wish to speak on the many aspects of the Bill speak on it or will we be curtailed next Session and the Bill bulldozed through?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment. Let me clarify to the House the important and genuine point that, if a suspension motion for a private Bill is carried and the Bill is carried over to the next Session, and, as in this case, the Bill had an adjourned Third Reading, the Third Reading will start from scratch. That is the procedure which we operate and that is the answer to both hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can rule on whether the Bill can proceed with the carry-on motion? You and the House will be aware that, in paragraph 26 of the special report, the Committee put conditions on its recommendations, stating:
In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect the coal mining industry.
We have received, no assurance whatsoever from the Government that they will take such action. In fact there has been evidence to the contrary. We have heard about the leaked document revealing that there could be another devastating attack on the coal industry. The recommendations and the conditions laid down in the special report have not been fulfilled, and I respectfully suggest that the Bill should not proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is a legitimate point to raise during the debate that we are now having. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Coming to this House after 20 years local authority service, I am absolutely astounded to find that half of the Members on the Conservative Benches have interests in South Africa, interests in coal and shares in coal, yet here we are debating with them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) can grin as much as he likes, but I am astounded at the contempt that this House has for our people, especially those in the mining areas. Conservative Members should be ashamed of that, and so


should you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You should not allow this debate to continue. You should suspend it—[Interruption.] You should forget it——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are in a difficult position because your concern is primarily with the procedures of the House and how the House should advance its business, yet most of the points of order that have been raised have questioned the legality of the measure if it goes through those procedures. I appreciate that some of those matters concern you, but they are also the concern of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. I suggest that the House is adjourned until either one or both legal officers come and make a statement on whether we should proceed with this measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Thank goodness, I have no power to summon Ministers to this House.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We now have at stake the integrity of the discussions that I had with the Clerk of the House and with Mr. Speaker's office. I am quite sincere in this matter because I had detailed discussions with the Clerk on a number of occasions. The Clerk, in absolute good faith and integrity, did all that he could about my complaints.
There are two outstanding matters relevant to Standing Order No. 120. The first is that in the general investigation, the Chairman of the Committee admitted that he had discussions with the sponsors of the Bill; secondly—I now quote from a handwritten note by the Chairman—he conceded:
I was unwise to speak to the sponsor of the Bill when I did.
The remaining content of that letter must remain private because it was a private letter——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that there has been a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege by an hon. Member, he knows the procedure that he must follow. He cannot raise the matter during proceedings on the Floor of the House; he must write to Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow him to proceed with that point if that is the nature of his allegation.

Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With all due respect, the establishment in this House is trying to gag Back-Bench Members and to deny us our rights in relation to the Bill. You are asking me to go back three months. I have done all that was asked of me by Mr. Speaker, so all that remains is that hon. Members, at 10 pm or even earlier, will have to vote on the Bill. My cursory investigations show prima facie evidence of a link between Conservative Members and the sponsors of the Bill. That calls into doubt the integrity of this House. Our integrity is now at stake. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now——

Mr. Skinner: The sitting should be suspended until the Attorney-General comes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These points of order have been raised before and I allowed them to have a good run.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on points of order. I have called every hon. Member who has risen——

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill and the hon. Member for Johannesburg knows it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have either given a ruling on the points of order or I have said that they were legitimate points to raise during the debate. It would be far easier if we were to continue with the debate on the motion, and I call Mr. Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown: Following on from the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) it is important to bear in mind——

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I try to assist you in what I appreciate is a difficult position? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked whether it would be appropriate for either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to come to the House and rule on the legality of proceeding with the measure. You said that that was not a matter for you.
If the House were to put a motion to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, requesting that the sitting be suspended pending the appearance of either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, would you accept that motion? We might then get out of the impasse and proceed with the business. Could you give me your guidance, please?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept such a motion. The motion on the Order Paper is perfectly in order and I hope that the House will now get on with discussing it.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Bradford, North was towards the end of his speech during our debate before the recess—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate——

Mr. Skinner: There are two points of order over here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that I have listened to many points of order. Those that are now being raised are merely a repetition of the points with which I have dealt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no they are not."] Order. I have dealt with the points. I hope that the House will now agree that it would be more sensible and more orderly to continue to discuss the suspension motion.

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With due respect to your earlier ruling, and while not wishing to challenge it, the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) have not been answered, although they have been heard in the Chamber and await an answer. I have a note of the words used by the Chairman of the Committee when he went under the Gallery. He said:
Since I am totally in your pocket I had better come across to speak to you. Michael Brown has had a word with me"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those points can be raised during the debate; they are not points of order for the Chair. I am gaining the impression that the House is trying to involve the Chair in political controversy—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the House will realise that it would be unfair to put the Chair in that position.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been before the Privileges Committee in regard to a matter concerning contempt. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, points concerning privilege must be dealt with immediately, or they will be ruled out of order. Because of the recess, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) did not have a chance to raise the matter at the appropriate time, and Mr. Speaker would now rule it out of order.
In the light of the information that we have received, surely we need the guidance of the Attorney-General on whether there has been a breach of privilege, or corruption behind the scenes. The information in the letter in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has exposed a serious defect in the Bill, which ought to be examined at the highest level.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has helped me. As he rightly says, a point of privilege must be raised with Mr. Speaker immediately; if the point had been raised at the appropriate time, it would have been dealt with at that time. If any hon. Member is suggesting that new information has become available that could amount to a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege, the procedures of the House are wholly clear: the matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House, where I cannot deal with it, but the hon. Gentleman concerned should write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I quote from the Standing Orders on Private Business? Standing Order No. 162, on Bills relating to water companies, is entirely relevant. The private Bill at present under consideration clashes with the interests of a water Bill promoted by the Government, and without a ruling on the interpretation of the Standing Order this Bill, in my view, should not proceed.
Standing Order No. 162 states:
In the case of a bill whereby it is proposed that an existing water company shall be authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by puplic auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained, unless the committee on the bill reports that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which its opinion is founded.
The Committee has been considering this Bill at the same time as the water privatisation Bill is being considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those points in his arguments against the suspension motion, he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill was first presented to the House in November 1987. For some two years, therefore, the House has been able to consider the Bill on Second Reading, and then to instruct the Opposed Private Bill Committee to consider it at the Committee stage. The

Committee considered the Bill, and reported it to the House without amendment. I remind the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman, and he should be given the courtesy of being heard.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to remind the hon. Members that the House has had an opportunity to consider the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and in the first part of the Third Reading debate. The carry-over motion will enable the House to reach a conclusion in the next Session of Parliament. In those circumstances, I believe that it is crucial for the motion to be approved. [Interruption.]

Mr. Redmond: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is rising to make a speech?

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am seeing whether any hon. Member wishes to continue the debate.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? As I understand it, the House is about to discuss a motion on whether to carry forward a private Bill. Many points of order have been raised about whether the Bill should be dealt with on the Floor of the House this evening. In view of what has been said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask whether Mr. Speaker's office has been called into disrepute by the malingering and gerrymandering on the part of certain Conservative Members. I ask you to suspend the sitting so that you can consult Mr. Speaker on whether the Bill should be carried forward this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my job to ensure that the business before the House is proceeded with. If the motion had not been in order, it would not be on the Order Paper. I hope that we will now get on with the debate: the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was interrupted by points of order.

Mr. Michael Brown: I wish to end my speech by saying that the most important point is that the Bill is the subject of controversy among Opposition Members with mining interests, and those interests will not be adversely affected by the Bill. It will probably not reach the statute book until 1990, and by 1992 its provisions will be enacted.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me repeat that we have had a long run on points of order. Some were asking me for a ruling on our procedures, and I have given rulings in answer to them. Most of the others—as I have explained more than once—were perfectly legitimate for the debate on the carry-over motion. It would be more sensible if hon.


Members made the same points without prefacing them with the words "on a point of order", because they are not points of order.

Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only rarely do I rise to raise a point of order, but I find the position confusing. Along with, I imagine, every other hon. Member present, I have a copy of the special report by the Committee. The doubt cast on the validity of the report, in view of the role and actions of the Committee's Chairman, raise the question whether views that I might express relating to the report would be relevant. Much of what I would have to say bears on its content. It seems that we must question the work of the Committee, and its actions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is a perfectly legitimate point for the hon. Gentleman to raise during the debate, and he has now done so.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer to what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I am deeply disturbed that the House is being brought into disrepute. When as many hon. Members are on their feet as I have seen tonight—and I have not witnessed such a sight in two and a half years—it shows the depth of feeling that something very underhand, if not corrupt, is about to take place. I believe that the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker—one of the highest offices in the House—should address itself to the concern felt by hon. Members. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suspend the sitting, to bring the Law Officers to the House and to make a ruling.
Hon. Members, the press and those in the Public Gallery are not the only people listening to the debate. The eyes of the country are on us, and the country smells something pretty rotten. I ask once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what my hon. Friends have already asked: that you bring the Attorney-General to the House, suspend the sitting and give us a ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I am not prepared to do that. We must continue with the debate.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Solicitor-General has just poked his nose in. He is available now to have a look at this matter. Therefore, we should suspend the sitting and a discussion should take place between him, the usual channels and representatives of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. Then we can proceed with the Bill if necessary. You have the power to suspend the sitting. It was suspended last week when Nigel Lawson packed up. The matter is important because it involves the loss of thousands of jobs in various constituencies, money being made in South Africa and Tory Members lining their pockets. It is essential to suspend the sitting so that discussions can take place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I am not prepared to do that. Any discussions that take place through the usual channels have nothing to do with the Chair. Mr. Leigh.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The facilities are essential. It has been said that they are primarily required for coal imports——

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called an hon. Member to speak in the debate. I hope that he will not be interrupted by further points of order.

Mr. Leigh: The facilities could be used for coal. Associated British Ports has a duty to——

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Leigh: Are you going to protect democracy in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: You have called two Tory Members on the trot.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have a point of order?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in difficulty because my hon. Friends are worried about rulings on the passage of the Bill. I ask you to consider the business on the Order Paper. The Bill is on the Order Paper because the Chairman of Ways and Means chose to allocate time to it. That was a decision about the priority given to private Bills. As you will be aware, many private Bills have not yet completed their passage through the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means decides which Bills have carry-over motions and allocates time to them.
My hon. Friends are worried about the propriety of the Bill's rate of progress. In Committee, the promoters asked for an undertaking that no amendments would be tabled so that they could avoid Report stage. Members of the Committee agreed, on the basis that a report would be submitted to the Government before the Bill proceeded any further. That was an odd procedure and it seems strange that the Chairman of Ways and Means found time for a debate on a carry-over motion for this Bill ahead of the long list of other private Bills.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has a unique position in the House. Sometimes he is in the Chair and the rest of the time he takes care of private business. It is perfectly legitimate for Opposition Members to challenge his choice and to ask why this Bill was chosen, particularly as it has had a chequered course. I realise that no hon. Member should challenge the Chairman of Ways and Means, but my hon. Friends have legitimate anxieties about why time was allocated to the Bill. Hon. Members have the right to look into private business.
It is extremely mysterious that one Bill should move forward at a faster rate than others. The promoters may make requests, but the Chairman of Ways and Means has to make the decision. How can the House influence the decision to allocate time to this Bill in preference to the other 15 or 16 that have not made progress? How soon can


we debate the report on private Bill procedure? The points of order raised today clearly show that hon. Members on both sides are dissatisfied with the present procedures.
I do not wish to push this matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will appreciate that I am close to challenging the Chairman of Ways and Means in that capacity as opposed to his capacity as Deputy Speaker. The House should have some way of asking questions about priorities in allocating time, without challenging him as an occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member said that he was not questioning the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has a difficult job in finding time for private business. He tabled this motion for today and it is in order. Like Mr. Speaker, he does not have to give his reasons when making a ruling. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the Bill was on its adjourned Third Reading.
Long before the debate this evening it was felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that some features of private Bill procedure were unsatisfactory. For that reason, the House set up a Select Committee some time ago. It has reported to the House and there has been a preliminary debate. The matter is now under consideration. If the hon. Member wishes to raise any point on that, he should address it to the Leader of the House, not to the Chair.

Mr. Leigh: Although the port of Immingham could be used for importing coal, what it really needs is to expand. It is crying out for additional facilities so that it can deal, in particular, with steel and chemicals. That point must be made repeatedly.
British ports face stiff competition from Rotterdam and other continental ports. Expansion at Immingham will help Britain compete effectively and allow businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to flourish. That is why we support the Bill. Opposition Members emphasise that the Bill is intended to allow imports of foreign coal, but it is not.

Mr. Michael Brown: We owe it to the House to declare the greatest interest of all—the welfare of our constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about our constituents?"] The only crime of which my hon. Friend and I have been accused is supporting the views of our constituents.

Mr. Leigh: rose——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the House is supposed to exercise a judicial function with regard to private Bills? The rules require that the people appointed to consider a private Bill do not have a constituency interest in it but are as disinterested as possible so that they consider it not through the eyes of an hon. Member with a constituency or financial interest but in a detached manner. I realise that we have moved on from Committee stage, but surely it is inappropriate for an hon. Member with a clear constituency interest as opposed to the interest of the promoters at heart to speak for the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says about the Committee is entirely correct, but, as he has already said, we are past the Committee stage. Its

proceedings were completed some time ago. What hon. Members say in this House must be a matter for their judgment and their judgment alone.

Mr. Leigh: It is a very strange state of affairs when a Member of Parliament who is attempting to ensure that his constituents' interests are safeguarded is criticised by Opposition Members.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have twice heard the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on points of order. I hope that they will not continue to interrupt the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who now has the Floor of the House.

Mr. Leigh: I shall bring my remarks to a close very soon.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member for Makerfield a very good run.

Mr. McCartney: I want to make a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now allow other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate to do so.

Mr. Leigh: The point that has to be made is that, because of the serious delay, it will be at least 1992 before the facility can be opened. That will provide ample opportunity for the Government, or any future Government, to reach a decision on their coal import policy. The carry-over motion relating to the Bill is not about coal imports. It is about increasing trade and helping to improve the economic outlook of constituencies in south Humberside and north Lincolnshire. It is on that basis that I support the carry-over motion.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: It is probably silly to say that the Bill arouses a great deal of emotion and concern among my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, but no hon. Member should feel ashamed about their emotion and concern, particularly when the jobs of their constituents are at stake. Therefore I make no apology for attacking the motion. I said on a previous occasion that this was a bastard proposal. My view has not changed. One could also describe it as a pirate measure. I do not understand why the motion that the Bill should be carried over to the next Session is before the House.
The Opposition have said in many of our debates that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee. The case for doing so was overwhelming, consequent upon the information that was coming to light week by week and month by month. Since we last debated it, it has become even more of a pirate measure. In all fairness, therefore, it should go back to the Committee.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the Bill being sent back to the Committee for re-examination. It would not be the first time that a private Bill was referred back to a Committee for re-examination.


Does my hon. Friend believe that, if the Bill were to be referred back to the Committee, which any decent legislature would ensure, the Chair of the Committee would have to be changed?

Mr. Eadie: It would be a legal matter, of course. I tried to assist the Chair when I said that, since we were trapped in legalities, the proceedings of the House ought to be suspended so that the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General could be asked to make a ruling. My hon. Friend asks whether the Committee's Chairman would have to be changed. There might also have to be new Committee members. My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
The Committee felt that what it was being asked to decide was, to a certain extent, out of bounds: that it was considering not just private legislation but a proposal that involved national energy policy. The Committee's view, therefore, was that the Government should respond to that point. The parliamentary group of hon. Members with mining constituencies sought a meeting with the Government. As a result of the far-reaching consequences of the Bill, which I have described as a bastard Bill and as a pirate Bill, we thought that the Government should respond to what the Committee had said about its belief that the proposal involved national energy policy.
We were received with the ulmost courtesy by very distinguished people—the former Leader of the House and the then Secretary of State for Energy who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. They undertook to provide us with the Government's view on whether the proposal had any implications for national energy policy. I am in no doubt that that was said to us with the best will in the world.
I shall not bore the House with the details. Any independently minded person who examined the proposal with complete objectivity would be bound to agree that since July it has been completely out of date.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Committee's recommendations and the conditions that it imposed in its special report have not been met by the Government, the Bill should go back to the Committee?

Mr. Eadie: Yes, it should, but will we, as parliamentarians, be allowed to vote as free individuals?
Part of the difficulty throughout has been that when we met the Government's representatives, they said, "This is not a matter for us. This is a private legislation; it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He must decide when it will be debated in the House."
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a reasonable point. Anyone outside the House listening to what he said would agree that he was developing an argument of sweet reasonableness. The problem is that Conservative Members, with the honourable exception of one or two, are being whipped to defeat whatever arguments are advanced. Mention was made of winning the argument but losing the vote—we have won the argument.

Mr. McCartney: It is accepted that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is the Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was

talking about hon. Members being free to vote. An entry in the Register of Members' Interests on the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes says:
Overseas Visits … 2–5 February 1988, to South Africa, as the guest of the Office of the South African Coal Industry.
The hon. Member will be entering the Lobby with a direct interest in what happens to the Bill. That is a public scandal which brings the House into total disrepute.

Mr. Eadie: I can understand my hon. Friend's emotions, which are shared by many Labour Members.
I wish that this debate was being televised. I am a super-idealist, but when people read about their conduct, Conservative Members' day of reckoning will come.
My hon. Friend for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) should not apologise for feeling emotional, because thousands of jobs are at stake. However, we must continue to argue against this bastard Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this debate were being televised, anyone watching would say, "It is a fine state of affairs when National Union of Mineworkers-sponsored Members of Parliament were not allowed to sit on the Committee that considered the Bill because they are too close to the subject, but a Tory Member of Parliament can not only sit on the Committee but chair it while he is representing an interest through the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association"? Would not an independent observer say, "There is something corrupt in the House of Commons when that can be allowed to take place. There is no place for miners, but places for Tory Members to represent the bosses who are pushing the Bill through"? There is something dirty about that.

Mr. Eadie: Of course there is something anomalous in what my hon. Friend says. I was the Minister with responsibilities for coal in the last Labour Government for five and a quarter years. I remember that I received a note from a civil servant saying that I should not be dealing with an aspect of the coal industry because I was so emotionally involved as a coal miner. What a cheek! I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear what responsibilities I had.

Mr. Skinner: I bet that was Bernard Ingham.

Mr. Eadie: As a matter of fact, it was.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this had been a report from a local government committee to a full council, the full council would have sent it back to the committee? If that did not happen, Conservative Members would say that the district auditor should investigate such corruption and whether there was a case to answer. If the mother of Parliaments cannot send back to the Committee something that is suspicious, we are worthy of suspicion ourselves.

Mr. Eadie: I know that there are many views of Parliament and that sometimes people are very cynical about it. I say to them that they can be either Members of Parliament or outsiders. Labour Members have more reason to preserve this House than anyone. If we leave here, we have nowhere else to go. This is a forum for discussion, and our forefathers made great sacrifices to ensure that we would have a Parliament in which we can voice the opinions of the people whom we represent. We


are not anti-parliamentarian by any stretch of the imagination. If we destroy Parliament and the way that it works, we destroy the opportunity for putting the case of the people whom we represent. I make no apology for defending the House.
At the outset of my remarks I mentioned the great change that has taken place. I showed how, since July, the Government's energy policy had changed. I said that that policy is out of date, which itself is a good reason for the Bill to be referred back to the Committee. It is a good reason for the Government to reconsider it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that we have asked the Government to do that.

Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend said that the document on Government energy policy was out of date when it was forwarded to my hon. Friend in his capacity as secretary of the miners' group. That document was not only out of date but was compiled at the same time as the document that was leaked to the Financial Times publication "Power in Europe". It is contradictory to the information given in the letter from the Secretary of State for Energy. At about the same time as that letter, the Department of Energy gave evidence to the Select Committee about several matters, including redundancies in the coal industry. The information given to the Select Committee was contradictory to the information that we were given in the letter from the Secretary of State, and different from the information in the leaked document.
The Government's energy policy is upside down. It is absolutely futile for us to consider this Bill. Some 30,000 jobs in the coal industry are at stake because 15 million tonnes of coal will be imported through the Humber ports if the Bill is passed. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) reflect on that and on the fact that there is no representative from the Department of Energy on the Government Front Bench and nor is the Leader of the House there?

Mr. Eadie: That could be the subject of a speech which would probably last for all the time that we have available. My hon. Friend poses a pertinent question and if I have a chance to make this speech, that question will be the substance of my remarks, because he is correct.
I must plead guilty of inaccuracy because I said that the Government's statement was out of date. The words were out of date because, at that time, we did not have the knowledge that we now have. It is a damning indictment of the Government that they had the temerity to write that statement, knowing perfectly well that there was a Cabinet document that we knew nothing about, and which was subsequently leaked. That was clandestine and it must cause embarrassment to the Government to be found out issuing words that do not relate to reality.

Mr. Barron: Before my hon. Friend goes on to make his speech, does he agree that the most damning indictment of the Government in their involvement with Associated British Ports, is that, at the beginning of the Third Reading debate on the Bill, the Minister refused to get up and to offer answers about the special report or about the way the Bill had gone through the House? It will be interesting to see whether the Government have come, prepared with a statement, to pass comment on the implications of the Bill, as we proceed towards 10 o'clock.

Mr. Eadie: I am glad that I do not have to respond on behalf of the Government and that I am not responsible for what they do. I am not a supporter of the Government and I am always anxious to point that out in letters to my constituents. I do not know what the Minister will say, whether he will respond or try to defend the indefensible.
I shall list three aspects of how things have changed. I do not want to incur the wrath of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I have to say that the nuclear power argument has changed dramatically even when one considers the words of the Secretary of State in the document. I shall not go through the papers and quote exactly, but they talked about security of supply, a price that the consumer could afford and a proper pricing policy. That is old hat.
I do not know what the Government will do about an indigenous energy policy but it is well known—in fact it appeared in The Observer, at the weekend—that we will not be able to build any more pressurised water reactors after Sizewell B, because they are too expensive.

Mr. Barron: It should be on record when we are talking about building PWRs that the cost per KW hour could be somewhere between two and three times more than using British fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Mr. Eadie: If I had been able to proceed, I would have been able to produce ample documentation to substantiate the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but he was right to intervene. When one is speaking one can omit details. I am not chastising my hon. Friend, but pointing out that it was my intention to mention that issue.
I base my remarks about nuclear policy not on anything that I have calculated, but on a letter that we received from the Secretary of State for Energy about a country that was trying its best to have an indigenous energy supply, and that was trying to consider "security of supply". I was astonished to read that at the beginning of the week.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have made a meal of the fact that we are importing 1,500 to 2,000 MW of electricity from France. We did the best we could and we tried to find out the cost of that electricity coming across the Channel link. We know what it costs them in France but we can never find out what we have to pay.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Question Time today. He was complaining about subsidisation within the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner: Is that the man whose Spitting Image flatters him?

Mr. Eadie: I am talking about the man who said that he has no objection to a 12-year-old kid having a plastic card, as long as he has money in the bank. I am glad we are at one.
The importation of cheap energy from France will probably have to cease, and the reason that has been given is the drought. At the moment, France is supposed to be madly importing coal to start up coal-fired power stations to sustain indigenous sources of energy. It has been said in many debates in the House that if one depends upon energy supplies from any area, whether it is politically unstable or not, one places British people in jeopardy.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have asked the Government on many occasions to state the price that we pay for French nuclear power. In my view


—and it is a generally accepted view—it is an example of dumping. My hon. Friend may like to know that new initiatives are currently being pursued in Britain and elsewhere to ascertain that price. It might be useful, since it is relevant to this debate, if the Minister came clean rather than having to be dragged kicking and screaming to divulge that information.
Does my hon. Friend agree that another serious danger for energy in Britain is the policy which is now being pursued of importing coal at a lower price into Britain than into other European countries? This new port capacity will be used to do that—to smash the British coal industry. When they have succeeded, they will be able to put the price up. That is just as foolish as importing French nuclear power.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is spot on. The dream of many countries is to have a safe, secure indigenous source of energy. We in this country are fortunate in that we have an abundance of energy reserves. Some people used to say that we had sufficient coal for 600 years—when I was Minister, we probably had sufficient coal for 1,000 years.
We have been greatly helped by the exploration for North sea oil. When the seismic studies were perfected, we found that we were studying coal measures that we had not thought existed. The so-called exporters who want to destroy our capacity to produce our own energy have been terribly wrong. I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to remember what the experts said to us about North sea oil. They said that oil could never be produced from the North sea because of the hostile climate, with winds of more than 100 mph and waves of more than 100 ft. The Norwegians said the same thing but put it in another context. They said that we could drink the only oil we could ever get from the North sea, and, of course, they were wrong.
The biggest blunder by the experts was on gas reserves. That is why we must consider the proposition lying behind the Bill. They said that North sea gas would be gobbled up by the year 2010. We know differently now. Norway and Britain probably have sufficient gas for more than 100 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has talked about the experts. They say, "You need only close the pits, wave a magic wand whenever you need it and you will be able to get the coal." It does not work like that. Miners these days must be highly skilled. They will not sit around on the dole waiting on their country to decide to open its pits again. It is also a physical impossibility to reopen all the pits. One can mothball, but only to a limited extent.

Mr. Skinner: Not Lawson. He couldn't do it, could he?

Mr. Eadie: I do not know. I shall give an example from my constituency. After hundreds of years, there is no longer any coal mining in Midlothian.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: It is a shame.

Mr. Eadie: It is a disgrace. That has happened not because there is no coal——

Mr. Hardy: There is low-sulphur coal.

Mr. Eadie: There is very low-sulphur coal. There is no coal mining because of the Government's policy. They said that it was too expensive to produce the coal.
We have a new development in Midlothian, which is called Monktonhall colliery. The authorities spent £40 million or £50 million on its development. The work went on below the Firth of Forth. The men stopped drilling because it became too boring as they were finding more and more coal reserves. British Coal, aided and abetted by the Government, decided that Monktonhall had to close. The authorities thought about it again and said, "We have spent that £40 million or £50 million on developing some of these seams. We will mothball the development." It has been mothballed for about a year, in the hope that things will improve. If Monktonhall colliery is closed because of the water problem—thousands of gallons of water a day are pumped up—the coal measures in that vast area will probably be lost for ever.
That is not energy policy. It is sheer vandalism. Let us remember that the Government are destroying what is a priceless asset for generations yet unborn.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I wholly support my hon. Friend's point. Is he aware that the coal reserves in Scotland are echoed down the east coast? In my area in Northumberland, the mine in which I worked was so far out under the North sea that we always claimed that we were entitled to duty-free goods. We were 6 to 10 km out. One of the mines in Northumberland was closed in the 1960s because of bad management decisions. The management decided to use a technique that was not appropriate under the sea. Millions upon millions of tonnes of coal reserves in that area have been written off because the mine had to be flooded after a fire. That is the situation about which my hon. Friend is talking. Those coal reserves are to be found not only in Scotland but along the east coast of England.

Mr. Eadie: As a Minister with responsibility for coal, I was privileged to see the results of many of the examinations which were carried out. I had some in my house but was not able to lay my hands on them. My hon. Friend is talking about the Cannibie coalfield, which starts at Dumfries and goes on and on through Cumberland. It is probably the largest unexplored coalfield in Britain. Mining that coal is a matter of investment. If pits were opened, miners in Wansbeck, Cumberland and Dumfries would be employed.
People talk about limited coal reserves, but Britain is a rich nation in terms of its energy reserves of oil, gas and coal. We should be worried about silly propositions like the Bill and talk of importing coal, thereby putting our miners out of work and destroying our capacity to produce coal.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the sponsor of the Bill, heard the words expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about closing coal mines and then reopening them. Only today the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, informed the Energy Select Committee that if a coal mine is closed, it cannot be reopened. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is aware of that.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you have to deal with some tricky


situations in the House but we are coming to a sorry pass. The sponsors of the Bill are sitting under the Gallery and there is a South African pin-striped fellow who has not yet opened his eyes. Despite all the talk, he is using the Chamber as a doss house—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Chair is accustomed to dealing with tricky situations. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one is not supposed to refer to people present but not in the Chamber. However, the point has been taken.

Mr. Eadie: Some of us are sentimental and if someone is sleeping, we do not want to disturb them unduly. However, perhaps the Badge Messengers could point out that he should go to his bed.

Mr. Cunliffe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We should suspend the House for 10 minutes. I an extremely concerned about our honourable visitor—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cunliffe: We should suspend the sitting—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Baron: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could look at no better region than the Scottish coalfields if we are studying the Government's energy policy, or the lack of it? There is a sub judice rule in the House and it is not my intention to comment on any particular case. However, two public bodies—British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board—are currently in court arguing about contracts. That sums up the Government's commitment to any form of energy policy.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend tempts me to deal with the absurd position in which we now find ourselves. The Government are supposed to reflect the needs of the nation but they are standing back and in the courts we have an expensive legal battle between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal.
The situation is becoming a farce. The problems are convoluted by the fact that last year the South of Scotland electricity board decided to import Chinese coal. If one is to depend on a particular area for one's energy supplies, one must look for areas of political stability. I do not regard South Africa as an area of political stability and I do not think that anybody would disagree that China can hardly be deemed as such. When we question the Government, they say that the case in the courts is a matter of commercial judgment for the bodies involved. That is an abdication of what good government should be about.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in May and June this year some of my parliamentary colleagues and I were in China during the student demonstrations? The instability still exists and my hon. Friend was right to say that China is not politically stable. We should not depend upon imports of Chinese coal. It will be 20 or 30 years before that country becomes stable again.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend adds substance to my earlier argument that we have an abundance of indigenous energy. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth say that some coal was low in sulphur content. However, some of the coals that we import are high in sulphur content. Earlier, I saw the green Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, sitting on the Front Bench. What are his views when the Cabinet decides on imports of coal? The Government supposedly went green. They are not very blue at times, but they are certainly not green either.
The coal deal made by the South of Scotland electricity board was absurd, yet it was done in Parliament's name. The price paid bore no relation to the cost of producing energy indigenously.

Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that only this week, 20,000 tonnes of Colombian coal, dug by small children, was imported on the east coast? For the past two years, large amounts of South African coal, dug by slave labour, has been imported via Rotterdam, where it is mixed with cheap coal, imported into this country and distributed. Is my hon. Friend also aware that an ex-employee of British Coal, who was a senior director of British Coal, is one of the directors of the main company involved in the mixing and sale of that coal?

Mr. Eadie: I know many people who are engaged in business and some of them are decent people. However, I also come across many people who argue that if it is good for business, it is justified. This is a question of morality. The analogy is to say that it is right to have cheaper coal even if it is produced by 10 or 11-year-old children. What kind of nation are we if we are prepared to countenance that? We are even encouraging it to some extent by buying such coal.
The Prime Minister talks about returning to good Victorian moral values. I do not know what moral values are for 1989 and 1990, but I know that my constituents take gross exception to the fact that as a nation, we argue on the basis that if it is good business and if it is profitable, we must carry on with it. I gave an earlier example which typified the Government's philosophy. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked a question today about 12-year-old children having plastic credit cards, he did not say that that was a bit much or unfair, as most people would have said. Instead, he had to bring the business aspect into his answer. He said that there was nothing wrong with it provided that 12-year-old children had the money. A Government who preach such moral values are wrong.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in addition to the feckless morality and social stupidity of a Government with such a policy, there is also demonstrable incompetence, which allows a current trade deficit of £18 billion a year which will certainly rise? Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that we shall soon see a pound-dollar relationship at least 25 cents lower than it is now? That will mean that although the Government believe that they are signing good deals to import coal from Colombia or elsewhere, in five or six years' time at the most, this country will find that it cannot afford the new price as a result of the changed sterling relationship.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have often heard that if one destroys one's indigenous


energy capacity, which is the key to a nation's requirements, and does not have sufficient energy sources, one dies. In the long run, a Government who subscribe to such a policy will be at the mercy of others.
A point was made about the financial problems that Governments encounter when they pursue such policies. Reference was also made to the estimated £20 billion trade deficit. To some extent, the Opposition are trying to help the Government and our constitutents. If we allow the importation of 15 million to 25 million tonnes of foreign coal, we will put extra pressure on our trade balance. Of course, we will never then be able to tackle the £20 billion defecit. It is absolutely crazy that the Government should be conniving. They are either sleeping or whipping the measure through. I cannot understand the crying need for this motion or for this three-hour debate,. It is absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend will have noticed that one of the excuses—it can be put no better than that—given by Conservative Members is that there is a need for a port in that area and that coal was only of secondary importance. My hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the port transport industry: since the abolition of the dock labour scheme, there has been over-capacity in our ports. We need another port like we need a hole in our national head. I hope that my hon. Friend will dismiss the argument about the need for further port capacity in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eadie: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. I was seeking to emphasise—perhaps overemphasise—the energy argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has brought a new dimension into the argument. Times have changed since this madcap, bastard Bill was introduced. My hon. Friend is saying that events have overtaken the Bill. He pointed out that the argument about port capacity is no longer valid. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There has been a cloth argument in favour of getting the go-ahead to import more than 15 million tonnes of foreign coal.

Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend is exposing the Secretary of State's double-dealing in his conduct of the Government's energy policy. I have a copy of a leaked document that mentions phasing in coal imports over five years. The Government are already talking about five years. The document states:
In such a significant closure round, it would be almost impossible to shield the UDM areas from further closures, given that British Coal have already fallen over backwards to maintain in existence relatively high cost pits in Nottinghamshire.
Since the miners' strike, the Government have pursued the closure of NUM pits and kept open the high-cost Nottingham pits, as part of their ideological policy against the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps later I shall be able to make the speech that I would like to make, at which time I can deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have all the vital statistics and I am sure that the House would like me to place them on the record. I shall tell my hon. Friend now in case I forget to tell him later that the facts he quotes are correct.

Mr. George J. Buckley: Understandably, my hon. Friend has dwelt on the consequences of the Bill on the coal industry. All Opposition Members expressed extreme concern at every stage of the Bill. The promoter of the Bill says that it will have no impact whatever on the mining communities. However, he introduced another dimension which I hope my hon. Friend will consider. He says that the Bill's main purpose is to introduce extra capacity for importing chemicals. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider that aspect, because it may pose danger to his constituents and to the constituents of other hon. Members. The Bill may result in the transport of toxic chemicals through our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) currently has a toxic waste problem in his constituency caused by imported chemicals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be able to respond to those points.

Mr. Eadie: I take your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My strictures are that interventions should be pertinent or should be questions, and they should not be so long.

Mr. Eadie: I take the strictures, but I understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) feels. He was a little emotional in describing the matter, but he need not apologise for that because I know that he speaks with great experience of this matter. My hon. Friend's first point was about the impact of the Bill on mining. Anyone who tries to suggest that the provision of facilities capable of handling the import of 15 million tonnes of foreign coal will not have an impact on mining is either not relating himself to reality or is economical with the truth.
We are not merely discussing the impact on one area of imports of coal because the importation of foreign coal touches every part of these islands. It touches south Wales, the north-east, Scotland, Lancashire—I could go through all the regions. It would have an impact throughout the United Kingdom. To some extent that is why the proposition has engendered such emotion in people from every part of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke about toxic waste, a matter of great controversy. At the moment I am concerned about the transportation of such waste by rail, quite apart from the possibility of its being conveyed from the ports. I accept that the toxic waste generated must be disposed of. My major criticism, however, is that, because of Government policy, we have not invested the necessary money to dispose of it by the best technological method available.
Vitrification was proposed long ago—it would not solve the problem of toxic waste, but it would make it easier to handle. Somewhere along the line, however, it was decided not to invest money in that process. The failure to do so has, of course, brought anxiety to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth, to those working at the ports as well as people living in different regions. Some countries approach this problem in a much more realistic manner and they already vitrify toxic waste—despite the fact that we invented that process.

Mr. Terry Fields: I know that my hon. Friend has had a long association with the Fire Brigades Union. He will be aware that that union resists the further development of the transportation of chemical waste. The fire brigade performs a tremendous task along with the ambulance service, which has been treated so shabbily by the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will get on to the substance of his speech, which he has been promising us for some time now.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—it is perfectly in order for me to comment on what he said—I know that the organisations to which he referred support the stand that has been taken in opposition to the Bill. He is entitled to that response from me so that it can go on the record. We are very dependent upon the emergency services—sometimes we do not want to be—if we are involved in a road accident or a fire. Those people do heroic work. It is right that what my hon. Friend has said should go on the record—they support our opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The two electricity generating companies have asked that they be able to reduce the amount of coal that they receive from British Coal from 25 million tonnes to below 60 million tonnes while getting the rest from abroad. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that one third of British collieries will close? It means that the Nottinghamshire coalfields will disappear. What happens when something goes wrong with the importation of that coal? My hon. Friend will know that the critical life of a pit is 10 to 15 years. One cannot just find new coal. If we import coal we will be going into the unknown and generations of people will suffer as they discover that there is no fuel for them. That is what will happen within 15 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that scenario is correct?

Mr. Eadie: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said and I hope to do so at even greater length later. A study of the leaked Cabinet paper bears out exactly what my hon. Friend has said. Those suggestions come not from a particular group on the Labour Benches, but from the Government. That is the important thing that we must understand. We are not talking about something that has been cooked up, but about Government statements. Before the debate is concluded I hope that I shall have the opportunity to raise some further questions so that they are put on the record.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for allowing me to say a few words. I have previously attended debates on this subject because it is one of the most important which we have discussed during my time here. I have listened to the Prime Minister over and over again saying how she hates sanctions against South Africa, that the sanctions would hurt the South African working people, and that working is the way for South African people to obtain their freedom. That is absolutely and directly connected with the issue which we are discussing.
We all know that these ports are a deliberate attack on the miners. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who represents the Union of Democratic

Mineworkers, knows full well that having used the UDM the Government will ruthlessly sacrifice it and all the workers of South Africa, including the miners. They know that the coal will go to Holland, where there are no mines, and that the coal will come here from specially arranged ports in Holland. We know that and they know that, and the South African workers defend the British workers as we defend them. That is the reality of the struggle which is going on.
The Conservative party supports trade unions in Poland, and so it should, but it does not support them here. The Government's sanctions are against the miners of this country. They believe in sanctions against our miners and pretend that they are not in favour of sanctions against South African miners. Such hypocrisy is almost unbelievable and must be fought, even though they have the will of us in the end.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you refer to page 227 of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" on the matter of the misconduct of strangers in Galleries? For the third time in this House we have to raise the fact that the representative of the Parliamentary agents, Sherwoods, is guilty of gross discourtesy to this House by sleeping under the Gallery. He is not someone who is a stranger to the House and visiting it for the first time, but a professional. paid individual who knows the practice of this House. In accordance with Standing Orders, will the Serjeant at Arms remove the person because it is a gross discourtesy to this House for such an agent to come here and conduct himself in such a fashion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but hon. Members should not refer to strangers in the Gallery. I assure the hon. Member that I have dealt with the matter in the firmest possible manner.

Mr. Eadie: I must respond briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has tried to argue in relation to South Africa. If the House has the patience to listen to me I shall describe what has happened in relations to the South African coal miners whose wages and conditions are a disgrace.
In the past, I have had the opportunity to speak to some of the leaders of the South African coal miners. I wish to make a point which I have repeatedly tried to make during this debate: the importation of energy does not assist our balance of payments problem. Worse than that, when we have an abundance of such energy of our own, it seems suicidal that we should consider contracting our indigenous energy capacity in order to buy energy supplies from overseas. Such a consideration is bedevilled by the fact that the energy is produced by semi-slave labour in South Africa.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough will accept that tonight we have been arguing that we want no part of that. One aspect of this debate has dealt with the morality and ethics involved in this matter. There is no morality in importing coal which is produced by 11-year-old children or slave labour in South Africa. Certainly we are very much against it.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I fully accept that the Bill increases port capacity and has implications for the coalmining industry, energy policy and the importation of coal. I have not sought to intervene earlier


because the Bill does not directly and immediately affect my constituents. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the beginning of this evening's debate many of his hon. Friends were seeking to deal with the motion, which has considerable significance for parliamentary and constitutional procedure, and it would be a great pity if between now and 10 o'clock those who wish to debate the substance of the motion were denied the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Eadie: I make no complaints about the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. If the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier, he will know that I raised a point of order. I did not like what happened in the House tonight. I told Mr. Deputy Speaker that a way out of the impasse would be to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes to allow the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to rule on the legality of the motion. It is only a guess, but we might then have been able to proceed. I do not know what can be done about the legality of the matter. My hon. Friends also have a view on that. The measure should not have been proceeded with tonight.
In the course of my remarks and in trying to respond to interventions, I have been trying to back up that argument. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree, but I hope that he will appreciate that some of the points that my hon. Friends have been putting to me, and some of the points that I have been putting, have sought to substantiate the fact that the Bill is out of date and that this carry-over motion should not have been before us tonight.
What happens in the next Session is a matter for us all to play for, but why on earth, with the Government under so much pressure to get their business through and with the House meeting at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, is this matter being treated with such urgency?
I might be told that I am behaving in an extraordinary way. I am not criticising anybody. The Chairman of Ways and Means may have been duty bound to put this measure on the Order Paper. However, I can say in all sincerity that I have been a Member of the House for getting on for 25 years and I know that any Government who do not want a particular thing generally succeed in their objective if they have the necessary majority.
We are reasonable men. The Leader of the House sent for some of us and we had a discussion. We said, "Look, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. You are saying that this is only a carry-over motion and that the matter will then be debated in the next parliamentary Session regardless of whether the matter is of the minor importance that you suggest." But if the matter has the insignificance that was suggested, why are we spending three hours debating this when the House is chockfull of parliamentary legislation that must be completed before the Queen's Speech?
If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) feels embarrassed by what has happened tonight, we have a solution to the problem. We should not proceed with the motion. Nothing would be lost or gained if we did that and the promoters of the Bill would be completely up to date when they had to produce a fresh proposition to present to the House. The hon. Gentleman and I would be better informed. Since the Bill was first presented to the

House so many things have happened. That is a reasonable solution as it would do away with all the hassle and all the difficulty.
I do not like what has happened here tonight. I have already expressed my views about Parliament, parliamentary democracy, the authority of the Chair and the conduct of business. To some extent, Parliament and the Government have been injured tonight.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is really very kind of him to be so generous with his time. Will he accept from me that we are debating a procedural motion designed to carry the Bill over so that further discussion can take place? It is certainly the Government's view that there is nothing unusual about having a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As the Government are always neutral in respect of private Bills—[Interruption.] We believe that it is wholly consistent with that position that the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means for the carry-over should be supported. Therefore, if there is a vote, the Government will recommend to the House that the motion should be carried so that there can be further debate, and all the issues that have been raised this evening could be pursued on Third Reading. Will he therefore accept from me that it would be the Government's recommendation that the carry-over motion should be passed by the House?

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why should we accept a statement like that from the Minister at the Dispatch Box when we know very well that on previous occasions when we have debated this Bill, all the Ministers have been wheeled in, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, to vote in favour of it? They have a Whip on it——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Eadie: Let me attempt to cool the anger of my hon. Friends. I want to respond to the Minister. It is unfortunate that the Minister is obviously not privy to what has happened. I do not wish to delay the House, but I could quote verbatim the Government's attitude, as it is contained in the letter I have here about the Bill. The Government argue that they want to be as reasonably objective as possible, but at the end of the day, it is a matter of ways and means. I and my hon. Friends are quite entitled to oppose the motion. The Government may disagree with us, but we are entitled to vote against the motion. But—this is what angers my hon. Friends—we know that there is a Whip on the motion. Therefore, the Government lack the candour that they should show on the matters.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have answered the Minister. I am not revealing any secrets as I respect confidentiality, but I was asked by the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House to go and see them. They asked what was the problem. I have a record of what I said then and also of what I said when we met the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State. We explained the problem to them. I know that the Minister was not privy to our discussions, so I do not


criticise him. We asked his Cabinet Minister why it was necessary to debate the measure tonight when the Government have such a pressure of business.
The Minister said that we were dealing with a technicality. Whether or not he believes that, he has been sitting at the Dispatch Box for most of the debate and one thing must be impressed upon his mind—that my hon. Friends do not think that this is but a simple technicality. If anything is marked on his mind, it must be how strongly my hon. Friends feel.
I said earlier that Governments with a commanding majority generally get their way. I am not suggesting that the Government would breach the private legislation procedure and usurp the powers of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Nevertheless, had the Government so wanted, they could have prevented this debate and all the agony felt by my hon. Friends. The matter is not as simple as the Minister has suggested, and we cannot allow the measure to proceed.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend consider the content of the Minister's intervention? He suggested that, if the carry-over motion was accepted, there would be a further opportunity for debate. Is it not true that if the motion is accepted, that will curtail further debate? If the Minister is anxious for further debate, what could be more satisfactory than to allow the Bill to lapse with other Bills on Prorogation so that it can go through all its procedures in a new Session of Parliament? If the Minister wants more debate, he should advance that argument. Does not all this demonstrate the Government's double standards and forked tongue?

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend argues with sweet reasonableness. However, I was even more reasonable when, at the outset, I said that because there had been great changes in energy policy—absolutely devastating changes—since the Bill was first born, the proper procedure would be to accept paragraph 26 of the Committee's report, which said that because the issue covered all aspects of energy policy it did not feel competent to make a judgment, and that it was a matter for Government to decide. My proposition was different from that of my hon. Friend. It was that we should decide to send the Bill back to the Committee, which would then examine it in the light of all that had happened, and report back to the House. Then we would have a proper, up-to-date report.

Mr. Hardy: May I add to the serious point made by my hon. Friend? Would he care to remind the Minister—a Transport Minister is on the Bench at present—that, just before the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill was, unfortunately, passed, a high-quality survey of port capacity in the United Kingdom was carried out by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, on whose council I then sat—as will be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is now a member of that council. That survey demonstrated beyond doubt that there was no need for the investment on the Orwell that destroyed a site of considerable importance.
There have been other approvals of dock investment since then, but the basis of the argument advanced against the Orwell investment is even stronger today because of that. We have, however, had no real opportunity to consider the transport implications of the Bill, because

economic and energy implications have been overriding. Does not the question of transport investment strengthen the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that proceedings on the Bill should start all over again? Would the Minister care to deny what I have said?

Mr. Eadie: I do not know how long I have been speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not long enough."] Indeed, I have not even started my speech. I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friends at this juncture; nor do I wish to be sandwiched between my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I was trying to demonstrate that I have been, to some extent, an example of sweet reasonableness. I had no intention of deviating from the proposition that I advanced at the outset as a solution to the problem.
I do not object to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has said; I am merely saying that we are giving the Minister not one but two options. If I could persuade the House to accept either, it would get us out of our present unnecessary impasse. I am astonished that as yet we have had no response from the Minister, but I suspect that he is not empowered to respond to the present climate of debate: if he were, he would surely have accepted one of those two propositions.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is probably one of the greatest authorities in the House on the mining industry, and, in his long speech, he has made some pertinent points and offered some solutions. The hon. Gentleman has talked about deep feelings, but does he not feel that they may be a little shallow, in view of the fact that only 51 of his colleagues turned out to vote against the Bill on Second Reading on 23 June 1988?

Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could rule on the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)? Is it relevant to the carry-over motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No breach whatsoever of our Standing Orders has been committed.

Mr. Eadie: At the outset of the debate, I said how emotional and indignant my hon. Friends feel about the motion. The point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) was synthetic. I made the mistake of courteously allowing him to intervene, but I am bound to say that he is the victim of his own Government's deception. The leaked Cabinet papers may have a devastating impact on jobs in the Nottinghamshire area and in his constituency. I predict that many Conservative Members will not be re-elected. They must be worried about their prospects. We have only the power of argument and persuasion, but Conservative Members ought to be able to exert some influence over the Government in a way that we cannot do.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points about the Government's energy policy and their attitude towards various other matters. It is entirely legitimate that he should pursue them in correspondence with Ministers, at meetings with Ministers, at Question Time and in debates that the Opposition wish to initiate. So that there is no confusion about it, I ought to point out


that we are debating the carry-over motion and that none of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is relevant to that question. I believe that I can explain to the hon. Gentleman in a way that he will understand why the Government support the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means to have the Bill carried over to another Session when it could be further debated.

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to the Minister for elaborating on the Government's point of view, but my hon. Friends and I have already written to the appropriate Ministers and asked them to explain the Government's energy policy. We have also asked them to explain why they sent to us documents that they knew were out of date.
The hon. Gentleman ought to convey to his ministerial colleagues our view that these debates should take place not in Opposition time but in Government time. The Government are responsible for the leaked Cabinet papers and for the mess that they have made of the nuclear power industry. They were responsible for finding out that nuclear power has become so expensive that it is quite possible that we shall be unable to build another pressurised water reactor. The Government must say why electricity, reputed to be derived from nuclear power and equivalent to the output of one massive power station, will be imported from France. We are told that, having accepted that deal, we may not be able to import that energy. I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to the Secretary of State for Energy, because they are important for energy policy.

Mr. Barron: In view of the Minister's remarks about the neutrality of the Government, perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the neutrality of the Government's payroll vote when it is exercised on private business.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Debates on the Bill have illustrated the convoluted nature of private business.
To some extent, the Bill has been under a guise, and I make no personal criticism of anyone in the Chair of anyone associated with the business procedures. To say that Conservative Members will have a chance to vote without being subject to whipping by the Government is untrue. Hon. Members are concerned about the private procedure. It is untrue to suggest that hon. Members will be voting freely in the Lobby, because Conservative Members have been whipped—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be able to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).

Mr. Eadie: I had a friendly meeting with the Leader of the House, who received us with the utmost courtesy. I told him about a member of the Government going through the Lobby, but that Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, decided that the matter—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to hold meetings, perhaps they would do so on the other side of the swing doors.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 169.

Division No. 366]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Hill, James


Amess, David
Howard, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Atkins, Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Bellingham, Henry
Irvine, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Jessel, Toby


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kilfedder, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knapman, Roger


Bowis, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brazier, Julian
Knox, David


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Butler, Chris
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Maclean, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Madel, David


Colvin, Michael
Mans, Keith


Conway, Derek
Marland, Paul


Cope, Rt Hon John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Couchman, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cran, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mills, Iain


Day, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Sir David


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dunn, Bob
Monro, Sir Hector


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Sir Charles


Emery, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Norris, Steve


Fookes, Dame Janet
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Patnick, Irvine


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Portillo, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


French, Douglas
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Riddick, Graham


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gow, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gregory, Conal
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rowe, Andrew


Grist, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hawkins, Christopher
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shersby, Michael






Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speed, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Squire, Robin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Tredinnick, David
Mr. David Davis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.


Trippier, David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galloway, George


Battle, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boateng, Paul
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clay, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clelland, David
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Latham, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Loyden, Eddie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mcl-all, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Nellist, Dave
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L.
Vaz, Keith


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wall, Pat


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly: —

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 169.

Division No. 367]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Faveil, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chope, Christopher
Hague, William


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Conway, Derek
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hill, James


Couchman, James
Howard, Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Day, Stephen
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)






Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thorne, Neil


Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrtek
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. David Davis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Tom


Blair, Tony
Crowther, Stan


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Buckley, George J.
Dewar, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank





Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morley, Elliot


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


Galloway, George
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, William (Corby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, Jeff


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kilfedder, James
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Steinberg, Gerry


Lambie, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lamond, James
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Wall, Pat


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Walley, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Wilson, Brian


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McWilliam, John
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill., stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second

time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Nitrate Pollution

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4136/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 relating to control of nitrate pollution; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community action to control nitrate pollution takes sufficient account of the range of circumstances in each Member State.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sitting immediately behind the Minister, but I cannot hear a word that he is saying.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I accept that point of order. Would hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so a little less noisily so that those who are interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about this important motion can do so?

Mr. Moynihan: The Scrutiny Committee, in its 14th report of this Session, recommended that the House should consider the proposals for a Council directive concerning the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrate from diffused sources. The debate has been arranged as the result of that recommendation and I should like to emphasise the value that the Government place on hearing the opinion of the House on such proposals. I assure the House that the Government will carefully consider the points made by right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
Before describing the Commission's proposals and saying something about the Government's response to them, the House might find it helpful if I say a few words about the current stage of negotiations.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be pleased to hear that this debate is well timed. The first substantive consideration of the Commission's proposal by Environment Ministers will be at the Council in November, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to know the views of the House in advance of that discussion. However, we do not expect a final agreement on the detailed terms of the directive at this Council, rather that Ministers will give guidance for the coming negotiations.
The Commission's proposals for this directive were published in January. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health issued an explanatory memorandum on 22 February describing the proposal and, more recently, on 19 October, I issued an updating memorandum on proposed changes to the text, to which I shall refer later.
Lead responsibility for this proposal rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In view of the potential implications of the proposal for agriculture—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should appreciate it if the House would come to order. The Minister is attempting to move this motion and he deserves to be heard.

Mr. Moynihan: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to this debate. This is the first proposal from the Commission to introduce controls on diffuse sources of pollution, which arise from multiple localised small sources of pollution. That is a welcome extension of existing environmental control measures, but means that we are breaking new ground in these negotiations. The directive may come to be seen as a precedent.
In their original form, the proposals would require member states to designate as vulnerable zones areas of land which drain into the following waters: first, surface fresh waters which are intended for use for drinking water and could contain more than 50 mg of nitrate per litre if protective action is not taken; secondly, groundwaters intended to be used for drinking water which contain more than 50 mg of nitrate per litre, or could contain more than this level if protective action is not taken; and thirdly, water which may become eutrophic with nitrate as the limiting factor, if preventive action is not taken.
The latest Commission proposals have modified the details of these requirements, particularly as they relate to surface waters.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend answer a simple question? As he rightly said, this is a precedent, an order relating to the environment which has been produced since the publication of the Single European Act. Has he, or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or anyone in the Department of the Environment, asked the Commission how it can present this order when article 130R subsection 2 of the Single European Act makes it clear that any actions in the Community relating to the environment will include the principle that the polluter should pay? Since this measure makes it clear that the general taxpayer and not the polluter will pay, will the Minister explain why he is willing to consider an order which is in direct contravention of the Single European Act?

Mr. Moynihan: I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be covering the important "polluter pays" principle. The 1986 nitrate co-ordination group report concluded that there were problems in applying the principle fairly to nitrate and individual producer levels. We agree with that, for several reasons.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: I appreciate the technical point that is being raised and I wish to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) by responding to it. First, current concentrations reflect agricultural activity and policy over decades, including the ploughing up of grassland. Secondly, different farmers following the same agricultural practice can produce significantly different nitrate leaching rates because of local circumstances.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is quite right? These policies of declaring nitrate-free zones on a voluntary basis will not mean that the polluter pays but that the polluter is compensated. Compensation will actually be given to those who are polluting.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have given two good reasons why it is impossible to apply the strict polluter pays principle in this example.

Mr. Michael Lord: Does the Minister agree that the two hon. Members who have just intervened are not correct because until recently what farmers have been doing has been regarded as best agricultural practice? Some sections of the community have now decided that it causes pollution. It will be hard on farmers if we start backdating in this way.

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point.
The latest Commission proposals have modified the details of the requirements that I have outlined, particularly as they relate to surface waters. Within those vulnerable zones, member states will be required to introduce controls on the application of chemical fertilisers and livestock manure. In the case of livestock manure, the original proposals were for limits on the amount that could be applied in terms of maximum livestock numbers per hectare of land. The Government would prefer to allow member states more discretion to adjust those limits to take account of local needs. The Commission is now suggesting an alternative limit of 170 kg per hectare. We shall need to consider whether either approach is satisfactory.
Member states would also have to take further preventive measures where necessary. Those are set out in annex 3 of the proposal and could potentially be very far—reaching in their effect.
Although the Commission's proposal deals with the problem of nitrate-limited eutrophication, we do not believe that to be a significant problem in the United Kingdom, and I shall confine my remarks to the other aspects of the proposals. However, the House will be aware that other factors, such as phosphate, may also be limiting agents for eutrophication. We understand that the Commission is likely to bring forward separate proposals to control discharges of waste water, and those may involve controls on phosphate.
The Government have welcomed the Commission's initiative in proposing a directive to control nitrate pollution. However, we see the need for a number of changes to be made to the detailed proposals. In particular, we consider that it is important that the proposals are sufficiently flexible to enable member states to tailor solutions to circumstances found in their particular areas.
The development of Communitywide action to control nitrate is to be welcomed. Most member states have a nitrate problem, and need to take action to protect water. There are rising concentrations of nitrate in many groundwater sources in the United Kingdom. Therefore, independently of the progress of negotiations on this directive, we are taking action domestically to control nitrate reaching water sources. Other member states are also taking measures domestically and the new directive will help to ensure that all member states develop appropriate preventative measures.
The underlying problem confronting Governments in all member states in respect of nitrate, which the directive is intended to address, can be stated simply. It is the potential conflict between ensuring the long-term ready supply of wholesome drinking water, and the plentiful

supply of food. In developing policies to control nitrate, there must be recognition of both the environmental and agricultural implications of what is proposed, and a proper balance drawn between them.
The problem of controlling nitrate pollution of water sources is complex. Solutions are likely to depend on factors such as the rainfall and hydrogeology, and on the existing balance of land use in the area. However, as most nitrate found in water comes from agriculture, it is essential that agriculture contributes, where appropriate, to action to reduce high nitrate concentrations in water sources. Of course, farmers should follow good practice in respect of nitrate. But the problem goes deeper and some cases may require measures that go beyond good agricultural practice, including changes in land use.
The Commission's proposals are wholly concerned with preventative measures to control nitrate pollution. However, it is important to select solutions, or combinations of solutions, that are appropriate to local conditions. In some cases, blending before supply of water of higher nitrate content with water from another source low in nitrate, or treatment of the water to remove nitrate, could be the most effective option. Such water engineering solutions are used already——

Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Minister clarify the issue of blending? Blending has so far been used to try to get within the limits laid down by the EC. Is the Minister saying that the blending will be used to continue to ensure that the water supply meets EC standards as well as the protection zones that will have to go with that, or is he suggesting that blending can be used as an alternative to the protection zones to reduce nitrate pollution in the longer term?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the objective is to reach the desired standard. My point is that we need to be flexible according to local conditions to make sure that that is achieved at the best possible price: in the best interests of the water consumer. To that extent it is not possible simply to draw a general principle, as the hon. Gentleman would seek to establish, but where, for example, in high season there are high levels of nitrates compared with low season, blending with appropriate waters can be the right mechanism. Such water engineering solutions are used already, and will ensure that water supplies contain no more than the permitted level of nitrate.
For the Commission's proposals to be acceptable, it is important that the requirements of the directive are clear. It would be quite wrong for the United Kingdom to agree to a Community directive without being fully aware of the responsibilities it places on the United Kingdom, and the steps necessary to implement the proposal. The Commission proposals could have a major effect over wide areas of the country, but the requirements in the initial draft were obscure. We are pressing in the negotiations to remove ambiguities from the text of the directive. That is particularly important in relation to the circumstances in which land use measures should be introduced. It is also important to establish our responsibilities under the transboundary pollution provisions in respect of the North sea.
The directive must also strike an appropriate balance between the environmental benefits of measures to protect sources and the economic effect of the measures on the


area in question. The treaty of Rome requires all environmental proposals to take account of the economic effect of proposed measures. This approach must apply in this case, for example, on the circumstances governing the introduction of land use measures. We are concerned that that point was not addressed in the Commission's proposals, and we are suggesting ways in which it could be incorporated.
The effect of the directive will, to a large extent, depend on the areas of the country that will be designated as "vulnerable zones" under the proposals. The size of the zones will depend on the way in which any numerical limits in the criteria are interpreted.
As I have said, the initial proposal from the Commission for vulnerable zones to protect surface water was for these to be required whenever the nitrate concentration of water in a river exceeded 50 mg per litre. That is a very strict test, particularly in view of the natural variability of nitrate in river water to which I have just alluded. It would require that river water be maintained at the same quality as drinking water at all times, regardless of whether a water undertaker intends to use that river source.
The Government have said that they would prefer an average level of 50 mg per litre to be used for designation of a surface water source, rather than an absolute level. We have represented to the Commission that the effect of an absolute level would be disproportionate, provided that drinking water is maintained at the appropriate quality. I believe that the Commission accepts our arguments on that point. They have proposed an alternative and rather technical approach, which is set out in the updating memorandum. We are still studying the Commission's new proposals.
The control of nitrate is a difficult and complex problem and the Community directive makes a contribution to finding solutions. We recognise that the directive as drafted would have a very extensive effect and we shall need to be sure that it allows us to strike the appropriate balance between land use for agriculture and the use of the land for water catchments. It is also essential that the directive should provide us with sufficient flexibility to match measures to United Kingdom conditions. The Government will take note of the points raised here this evening, and we shall also make sure that the European Commission is aware of the views expressed. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I listened with care to the Minister, who did no more than read his brief. The Government have tried persistently to belittle the problems related to nitrates and algae blooms caused by sewage discharges. The Minister gave no sign that the Government recognise that the problems need to be addressed with a little more urgency and willingness to accept the facts.
Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies are well aware of the conflict of interest between those who consume water and those who farm the land. I should be surprised if any hon. Members representing rural constituencies had not received representations from people concerned about polluted water supplies and

farmers concerned about the implications of farming in a way that did not lead to nitrates getting into small and private water supplies in particular.
The problem of nitrates has to be tackled. There is a clear difference, which the Minister acknowledges, between the Commission's proposal that 50 mg should be the maximum and the Government's approach, which was first to argue for 75 mg and then to accept 50 mg as an average, which presumably means that they may allow even more than 75 mg in some cases. In a sense, the Government are seizing the Commission's initiative as an opportunity to put forward an even weaker proposal than the one that they had been prepared to negotiate. That is a genuine concern about the Government's attitude.
It is a pity that the Government are in no position to appear credible on the problem of eutrophication. The problem of polluted water, sewage effluent and sewage discharge is absolutely central to the cost of water privatisation and will have to be confronted by those who invest in the industry. It is inevitable that the Government should say that there is no problem, yet evidence from others, notably our continental neighbours, suggests that it is a serious problem and that blooms are occurring around the coast of the British Isles—which the Government will not acknowledge, but of which others are aware.
It is hardly surprising that the Government do not wish to acknowledge the problem. If they did, they would also have to accept that the cost of putting the problem right could be up to £3·5 billion. If that sum had to be absorbed, it would not make privatisation of the water industry attractive. Although the Minister has tried to present the debate as centring around a technical response to a technical initiative from the Community, it represents a much more fundamental problem that the Government have tried to duck for years. Not only have they not implemented the previous directives on nitrates; they have actually sought to delay them. It is only in the last month that the European Commissioner has finally said that he will take the Government to court. When my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) met him, the Commissioner made it clear that that was the only way that the Government would respond, given their commitment to water privatisation and. their unwillingness to face the full implications of the proposals.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I share the Government's concern about the impact of the regulations on farming and farmers. Labour Members forget that working people live and work on the land. They need their livelihood——

Mr. Morley: Only 3 per cent.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman shows no understanding of the fabric of the rural economy and how agriculture underpins it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman justifying pollution and the destruction of the environment, as do some Conservative Members, on the basis that it is agricultural pollution rather than industrial pollution?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman was so anxious to intervene that he did so a little early——>

Mr. Roberts: Answer the question.

Mr. Bruce: I am not in favour of agricultural pollution, and I am in favour of the Commission's proposals. I understand that they cannot be imposed overnight. Farmers must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, especially in current circumstances when many are facing financial difficulties. The difference between my party and the Labour party is that we are concerned about workers, whether they are in industry or in any other sector of the economy, whereas the Labour party chooses to represent only those workers who will vote Labour in certain areas.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman and I have participated together in many debates and I have often heard him refer to the rural position. Unfortunately, when other members of his party address audiences in more urban areas they are as willing to castigate the rural areas as he is to castigate members of my party. There seems to be a difference between his hon. Friends who represent Scottish rural constituencies and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who takes a quite different approach to urban affairs.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of information, my seat is not rural. It is a mix of a substantial rural area and a substantial urban area. The record will show that the hon. Member for Bootle intervened in the Minister's speech and said that he was not interested in farmers. I am, and I think that the Government are, too.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I will not; I think that I have given way enough. I have made my points, and I stand by them.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is only a brief intervention.

Mr. Bruce: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is not giving way.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman please give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has been here a long time, and he should know better.

Mr. Bruce: This is a short debate, and I do not want to prolong it more than necesary. I have made my points. I think that my case rests, and I am entirely satisfied with the record.
My conclusion—which I hope that the Minister will address—is that we should not delay for the sake of agreement about getting the facts straight. We should ensure that there is proper time to adjust, but the Minister should acknowledge that it is not good enough to go on pretending that there is no problem, particularly in regard to eutrophication. Clearly there is a problem. The Government should accept that, one way or another, the problem must be addressed and money must be invested —not least in ensuring that we do not discharge raw sewage into the seas around our coast. We must set ourselves a timetable to eliminte that process.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I should like briefly to tell the House something about the south Devon coastline, which is part of my constituency. Those 88 miles of coastline have more designated areas than any other coastline in the country: it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and is called "the heritage coastline" and "an area of great landscape value". It contains a good number of conservation areas, a national park is close by it, and it has many sites of special scientific interest. Yet at Thurlestone——

Mr. Hoyle: Stop reading.

Mr. Steen: I will stop reading when I wish to stop reading, not when the hon. Gentleman wishes me to stop reading.
At Thurlestone there is a sewage outfall which is at 300 times the Common Market beach pollution level. I am afraid that, in the summer, a swimmer contacted hepatitis A as a result of contact with sewage flowing into the sea there. At Street, some way along the coastline, raw sewage flows out to sea: it goes over the cliff through a broken pipe, having been carried through agricultural land. All the sewage of Dartmouth, together with sewage from 50 other outlets, flows into the River Dart untreated.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Steen: I will not give way.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, having been told to stop reading, to continue to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not told the hon. Gentleman that he is reading, and in any case it is not unusual for hon. Members to refresh their memories with notes, sometimes copious notes.

Mr. Steen: It is clear that Opposition Members are not taking the matter seriously; they just want to make fun. My hon. Friends believe that this is an extremely serious debate, which will have serious consequences.

Mr. Hoyle: It is very serious, but the hon. Gentleman should not read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warrington, North knows that he must not persistently intervene from a sedentary position. This is a serious matter, and I very much hope that the House will take it seriously.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is a serious matter, but I am sure that the rules of the House apply—do they not, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Lord: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members, simply because they dined quite well, to disrupt a very important debate? I should be grateful if you would give some thought to dealing with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) if he continues to carry on in this way.

Mr. Hoyle: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be more sensible to get back to the debate.

Mr. Hoyle: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] We cannot allow aspersions to be cast on Opposition Members who take a deep interest in debates, at whatever time they may be held. We cannot allow someone to come along and say, just because it is 10.49 pm, that certain people may or may not have dined well—and that usually applies to Conservative Members.

Mr. Steen: I have referred to the enormous amount of sewage that flows into the rivers and then into the sea along the south Devon coastline. The Government need to be more robust and active than merely taking note of a European Council directive.
On the south Devon coast there is a natural freshwater lagoon, Slapton Ley. It is a site of special scientific interest. The freshwater lagoon is separated from the sea by a few yards. It was recognised as one of the finest fish and bird sanctuaries in the country. During the last 20 years, however, the fish population has declined by 70 per cent. and the lagoon is attracting fewer and fewer birds.
A few months ago I was asked to open a bird hide for the handicapped. When I pushed the first old lady in her wheelchair into it we found that there was not a bird to be seen. The reason is simple: the rivers are polluting the lagoon. Apart form the acids pouring into the ley, South West Water is pumping sewage into it. About a year ago I started a campaign to draw the Government's attention to the fact that this site of special scientific interest in an area of great landscape value and outstanding natural beauty is being destroyed by pollution.
On 25 August 1989 a Totnes newspaper reported that I launched a campaign to clean up Slapton Ley. I explained what I thought ought to be done—that there ought to be
a pilot scheme designed to safeguard this environmentally sensitive area.
So far, however, I have singularly failed to persuade the Government that they should take any interest in the matter. I pointed out:
Toxic materials washed off surrounding farmland and treated sewage effluent have upset the ley's natural balance and have resulted in a serious decline in fish and bird populations".
I explained:
The reserve, a site of special scientific interest, is being clogged by an unnatural growth of algae which blocks out sunlight and starves the water of oxygen. There is a clause in the Water Privatisation Act for wildlife havens like Slapton to be designated nitrate sensitive areas.
I received the Minister's response yesterday. I hope that I shall not embarrass him, but it shows our Government's commitment to green issues and to doing something about preserving one of the most important sites of special scientific interest. He said:
I was very sorry to hear that this nature reserve, and SSSI, appears to be deteriorating in quality and wildlife interest. Our Regional staff are of course aware of the problem and have
had meetings with various people. He continued:
It is one of our oldest and best known SSSIS and I am sure everyone will wish that it can be quickly restored.
He then went on to say that, broadly, the problem had been identified as both nitrate and phosphate run-off from agricultural land but that there was no evidence that local farmers had not been observing good agricultural practice.
The evidence is overwhelming that the damage to fish and bird life has been caused by sewage, pumped into the ley by South West Water, and the use of nitrates and

phosphates by farmers. They are perfectly prepared to stop using them if the Government will compensate them for not doing so. The Minister said:
I am afraid that MAFF cannot simply designate the Slapton area as a Nitrate Sensitive Area in our pilot scheme. The National Rivers Authority is responsible for selecting the 'candidate' areas, and they have recently notified us of areas which we are now looking at in depth before any Scheme is introduced. I am copying this correspondence to Michael Howard at the DoE, which is the Department with responsibility for sewage treatment".
How can the Minister duck an issue affecting one of the most treasured areas of this country? Why was he not more positive in his response to me? There is national concern that a site of special scientific interest is being killed off by lack of Government action. I hope that the Minister will realise that the directive has given us an opportunity to draw attention to the Government's failure to practise what they preach.
I should like to mention another problem that has arisen in south Devon and many other parts of the country —the taking of more and more water from the water system, particularly reservoirs, because of the unrestrained growth of house building. Water authorities are not telling the planning authorities that they cannot supply increasing quantities of water. They are pumping more water from the reservoirs and reducing the amount of water flowing down the old river course. Nitrates are flowing off farm land—I do not blame farmers for that—and poisoning the reduced levels of water.
I shall give as an example what is happening at the Avon dam in the Dartmoor national park, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. When the Avon reservoir was built, 0·95cu m per second of water was diverted from the mains water supply down the old river course. That figure reduced to 0·68 in 1978 and from that to 0·026. In August 1989, South West Water applied to the Government to reduce the figure from 0·026 to 0·012. Experts said that if that had happened it would have taken three to five years to restore the river to health.
By reducing the amount of water flowing down the old river courses, we are allowing nitrates to have a powerful effect on aquatic life. We are reducing the amount of water to such an extent that nitrates are not being diluted. The reason for that is that the water authorities are not telling the planning authorities, "We cannot allow any more building until we have a greater water supply."

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is aware of my knowledge of his constituency. Does he agree that over the years the provision of reservoirs in the area has been grossly inadequate?

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's interest in my constituency is well known, and I am grateful for his intervention.
Instead of the water authorities refusing to allow more houses to be built until more water is available, they have allowed water to be used to such an extent that the rivers have become depleted and the poisons are not being sufficiently diluted.
Although the Minister will say that it is not his Department's responsibility but that of the Department of the Environment—they are both passing the buck—as a Government we should be committed to purifying rivers, to reducing pollution and to ensuring that more house


building is not allowed until the supply of water is adequate. We cannot continue destroying aquatic life in our rivers because we want more houses built.
It is regrettable that we are debating a matter in which Britain should be taking the lead only because the EC decided to produce a directive. However, because it has done so, we are obliged to ensure that we make fast progress in ensuring that our river life is not destroyed, that we stop building until we have enough water, and that we do not destroy our sites of special scientific interest.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North): My hon. Friend is right, and what he is saying strikes a chord in all of us, especially those who represent rural areas. I think that my hon. Friend will find that his call is being responded to by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to judge from a speech that he made in Blackpool at a certain occasion not long ago. My hon. Friend is making the right noises, and I think that there is reason for optimism.

Mr. Steen: Because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), which took five minutes out of a speech that I had to make in 10 rather than 15, I think that it would be right for me to sit down and allow others to speak.

11 pm

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) should say that Conservative Members are expecting a positive response from the Secretary of State for the Environment on this issue and the pollution of our rivers and seas.
The Government are committed to a policy of sewage sludge-dumping at sea. They are committed to a policy of using long outfalls to dispose of raw sewage further out to sea—so it lands on different beaches. I hope, but doubt, that hon. Members who are now complaining about sewage damaging our rivers and seas voted for Labour's amendment to the Water Bill which would not have exempted private water companies from prosecution for such pollution.
I understand that the present Secretary of State for the Environment has not altered the policy of his predecessor. Private water companies are still to be exempted from prosecution for breaching discharge consent levels on sewage discharges into rivers and seas. The 12-year moratorium that applies at the moment, which we voted against, but which Conservative Members did not vote against, could be extended by the Secretary of State. It is agreed that water companies can produce proposals for expenditure and the possibility of dealing with the problem. There is no time scale. There is no expenditure —only proposals for expenditure./
The Government are clever at saying one thing and doing another. They claim to be concerned about the environment and nitrate and nitrate pollution, yet they adopt policies that will ensure that action is not taken. The Times of Monday 14 August—when the House was in recess—reported:
£3 million grant cut puts water nitrate and crop studies at risk. A cut of £3 million by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
The Ministry is the culprit. It is preventing wiser voices in the Department of the Environment from taking real action on nitrate and nitrite pollution because of the

National Farmers Union and the agriculture lobby. Whatever we say, the agriculture lobby is pernicious in this respect.
Such pollution derives directly from the common agricultural policy, the commitment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—one could call it the MAFFIA—intervention, and our membership of the EEC.
The Times said:
A cut of £3 million by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for horticultural research has jeopardised studies into nitrate levels in crops, the water supplies and the future of a bank of plant genes. The decision to withdraw Government support amounts to a 20 per cent. reduction in spending over the next two years for the Institute of Horticultural Research.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is being rather rude about British farmers, but he obviously enjoys that. Would he like to explain how individual farmers are to blame for the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Roberts: I did not say that individual farmers are to blame for the common agricultural policey. I said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, intervention and our membership of the Common Market, as long as the CAP is in operation, are responsible for nitrate and nitrite pollution and the overuse of fertilisers. We pay the richer farmers through the subsidy system for producing more food than we need.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was at the Conservative party conference. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not, but the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was. The people who attend Conservative party conferences must not be very bright, because the right hon. Gentleman had a visual aid—"This is a butter mountain. This is a smaller butter mountain." He boasted about having reduced the butter mountain. The butter had been given to the Russians.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It is Conservative party policy to reduce mountains of surplus food.

Mr. Roberts: It is Conservative policy to have visual aids showing butter mountains. There are butter mountains, beef mountains, wine lakes and so on. If we get harmonisation, they might mix the mustard with the wine —I do not know. As long as the common agricultural policy continues and farmers are subsidised, they will be reluctant to stop using nitrate fertilisers, and the pollution will continue. Something must be done.
We are being prosecuted under the provisions of an EEC drinking water directive on nitrates—80/778—because of the high nitrate levels in drinking water in East Anglia, Tower Hamlets and other places. Nitrite pollution is linked with the blue baby syndrome. It may also, although the research is not conclusive, cause stomach cancer. If we accept the Government's commitment to a declaration signed by North sea countries and adopt a precautionary approach, we should take action to ensure that nitrite and nitrate pollution does not occur in our drinking water. Cancelling research into the problem does not help.
This directive aims to reduce pollution of fresh, coastal and marine water caused by nitrates from diffuse sources —agriculture, fertilisers, animal manure and slurry. The Government could adopt a policy of giving farmers assistance, even grants, to provide facilities for the storage


of slurry. The designation of vulnerable zones is welcome. The Government's desire to designate those zones was welcomed even by Labour spokespeople in the other place. However, all the designations will be voluntary. Lord Crickhowell spoke in favour of the voluntary approach and criticised the EEC directive on the lines that the Government were doing something—meaning that no decisive or precise action will be taken.
When will the National Rivers Authority be seen to be independent of the Government? When will it have a chairperson who is not a Tory placeperson and former Cabinet Minister?

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless, even the NRA has designated 24 lakes and rivers which suffer from the problem of eutrophication of algae, yet the Government continue to say that there is no problem.

Mr. Roberts: I agree. During the summer, lakes and reservoirs were closed because of the production of algae. Nitrates are a problem not only because they get into our drinking water through the use of fertilisers but because they get into natural fresh water lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, which become eutrophic. In simple terms, that means algae grows, becomes poisonous, and damages the environment. If no action is taken where high nitrate concentrations are identified, the algae continues to grow and to kill plant and animal life. That is a serious problem. It is in our drinking water, lakes and reservoirs. It also gets into our rivers and ground water and flows into the sea and around our coastal areas. It over-fertilises the photo-plankton and the seaweed around our coasts which flowers more than it should. That takes the oxygen out of the sea which means that fish and other life forms cannot survive. It is a major problem that needs to be addressed by the Government.
Could pesticides and nitrates get into our food and cause problems in the products we buy in our supermarkets?

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some farmers have to use fertilisers to make a living and that if they use fewer fertilisers and acids, they should receive compensation? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the algae but a unique condition was caused this summer by the drought. It is not right to conclude, as he has, that the problem occurs every year.

Mr. Roberts: It does happen every year but not on such a large scale and it is not given as much media attention. However, I agree that it is made worse when the weather is hot.
I am in favour of the declaration of zones within which nitrates and nitrites are not to be used. Action should be taken in vulnerable areas in which nitrates and nitrites may find their way into ground water and fresh water sources and into drinking water. However, I do not believe that the Government's solution, under which farmers would voluntarily declare and operate zones, will work. I saw a farmer interviewed on television and he said that if the farmer next door is not forced to stop using nitrates and nitrites, he would not stop, even if his area was declared a vulnerable zone.
The problem can be solved only by a mandatory approach. I do not object to help being given to farmers to deal with the problem. However, the long-term solution to the over-use of nitrate and nitrite fertilisers is to stop using them and to ensure that they are not necessary. To do that, there would need to be some changes to the common agricultural policy.
I am not against facilities to farmers as long as they are used wisely and the benefit is felt by the consumer and the farm worker. However, that is not what happens to many of the subsidies now. It is Labour party policy——

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Am I right in saying that he has committed the Labour party to the huge increases in food prices that would result from the abolition of nitrate fertilisers?

Mr. Roberts: Conservative Members are always trying to make mischief and misrepresent what people say.
Before I gave way I was about to say that the Labour party will assist the poorer hill farmer in a way that does not happen under the CAP. We will assist those who grow and develop programmes for producing crops organically. That will help the consumer considerably. We will not adopt the policies that the Government now seem to be embracing having commissioned the Pearce report. The report says that we should tax the polluter and polluting activity. That includes farmers. Therefore, if farmers use polluting fertilisers and pesticides they will be taxed. That will mean not that the polluter pays but that one pays to pollute. What is likely to happen is that farmers will continue to use nitrate fertilisers and will pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer.

Mr. Hardy: I ask my hon. Friend not to allow himself to be diverted by hon. Members who are trying to ensure that we start talking about the plight of the farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as a farmer himself, would find that attractive. They are trying to ensure that my hon. Friend moves away from his scathing indictment of Government environmental policy, which should be at the heart of this debate.

Mr. Roberts: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, but we must remember that one of the Government's answers to agricultural pollution through the use of nitrates and nitrites is to tax the farmer. The Pearce report recommended that and, generally, the Government have embraced the Pearce report. The Government's policy may be to tax the polluter, but in practice it will be a policy not that the polluter pays, but that one can pay to pollute and can pass on the cost to the consumer.
We are not surprised that the Government's policy means that the consumer will pay. The Government claim that they want to clean up our water environment, but they have made it clear that if there are any improvements in our water environment, the consumer will pay for them. The polluter will not pay and the private water companies discharging the sewage will not pay. All the cost will be borne by the water consumer. The Government's policy seems to be that the consumer pays.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: I will give way, for the last time.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman has said that we produce too much food. In fact, we grow 85 per cent. of the temperate foodstuffs that we need. If nitrogen application is to be reduced in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, what proportion of food will be home grown?

Mr. Roberts: Eighty-five per cent. Europe produces beef and butter mountains and Britain contributes to some food mountains. It is not advisable for the Government to continue policies that are polluting our drinking water, rivers and seas. They also pursue policies—which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) supports—that produce beef and butter mountains, and wine lakes. We are opposed to that. We shall continue sane and rational policies, which will help poorer farmers, such as the hill farmers, and encourage organic products for the housewife and the househusband.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: No. I said that I had given way for the last time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Frit."] It is not a matter of being frit; it is a matter of time. I shall receive complaints if my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are cut out of the debate because I speak for too long.
The Government's response to the directive is acceptable, but inadequate because it does not go far enough. The Government are damning with faint praise and assenting with civil leer, as they usually do. They claim to accept the main thrust of the directive, although they deny the principle behind it, which is a requirement for more direct action by Government to deal with the nitrate and nitrite pollution problems. Nine advisory areas, on a voluntary basis, and pilot schemes are not acceptable at this stage when one considers the problems caused by this pollution.
The Government should take stronger action and intervene in the market to assist farmers who are prepared to adopt environmentally acceptable methods of farming which do not involve the use of damaging fertilisers and pesticides. They should intervene in the market through legislation to have more powers over what is happening. The Secretary of State for the Environment should tell the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he does not accept the views that are being pushed on him by his colleague and that concern for the environment is as important as concern for the farmers and agriculture—which is important—and the common agricultural policy.

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): I shall contribute only briefly to the debate and shall not take up the majority of the arguments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. Many of my constituents will be interested to hear, however, about the new policy of the Labour party to phase out the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers at the earliest possible moment. The effect of that on food production and food prices would be dramatic.
I wish to emphasise the extent of the concern in my constituency and, I believe, in the country generally. The efforts of the European Commission are obviously well intentioned and all the contributions to the debate have been well intentioned, but the content of the directive and its presentation are not good advertisements for the work

of the Commission. It has produced an inflexible scheme, the potential cost of which is enormous, without proper evaluation of the options.
The scheme is highly unpredictable in its consequences. The Select Committee in another place estimated that a reduction of one third in arable crop output could result from a strict interpretation of the directive's proposals. Perhaps that is an outside estimate. I have no doubt that it is possible to exaggerate, but it is a large enough number to merit considerable concern. That will or could be the result of a directive for which the Commission has published no scientific evidence. It has never been able to clarify where the limit of 50 mg per litre comes from. We all agree that there has to be a limit and that the problem must be tackled, but the Commission should be able to produce more scientific evidence than it has presented.
No doubt the Commission would say that a limit of 50 mg per litre would be on the safe side. It is a good thing to be on the safe side, and that is the side on which we all want to be because the hazards of excessive nitrate pollution accumulating in future are great, but we want to be on the safe side in the most practical, sensible and cost-effective way. It is not clear that the most cost-effective way is to endanger the productive capacity of vast tracts of agricultural land.
The United Kingdom is unusual in the European Community in the proportion of its drinking water that originates on the surface rather than under the ground. Our circumstances are different from those in many parts of the continent. Such factors must be allowed for in any agreement that is reached in the European Community.
Nor is it clear that it is sensible to introduce a limit which has to be broken only once for compulsory restrictions, as set out in the directive, to come into force, especially when it is likely to be broken occasionally in some areas because of unusual weather conditions or the onset of winter. There will be dilution subsequently in any event as the polluted water flows into large bodies of water. It has not done the Commission any good to produce such a proposal. I can presume only that it did not have the research capability and background to enable it to evaluate the consequences.
I support the Government's effort to allow greater national variation. The extent of the problem varies widely according to local rock formation and local agriculture practice. If the Government accede to a compulsory scheme—and hon. Members who have referred to the unwillingness of farmers to adopt a voluntary scheme should remember the success of the voluntary environmentally sensitive area scheme, for example—the problems of deciding on fair compensation for farmers will be immense. How will we decide how to compensate the farmer who has invested heavily in the drainage or irrigation of his land and the farmer who has not? The problems will be enormous.
I hope that Ministers will approach the forthcoming negotiations with their customary resolve. I hope also that they will take the message from the House that it would have been better if the Commission had concentrated on laying down common standards, subject to sensible interpretation for different conditions, rather than troubling itself to seek to introduce inflexible rules and compulsory restrictions, the consequences of which it has shown little evidence of recognising.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I well understand his caution before he embraced the criticism that is justly levelled at the Government. The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House, but he will be aware that I have been concerned for a long time about environmental matters. He knows that in our home area—I think that it is still his home area—we have some of the foulest rivers in Europe.
In 1971 when I had been in the House a short time, I campaigned—which is the word that I think the Yorkshire Post used—for clean rivers. I was promised that the dirty, foul sewers of South Yorkshire would reach class 2 or recreational standard by the middle 1980s. We were advised in the mid-1980s that our dirty, open sewers might reach recreational standard by the early 21st century. Far from making progress we appear to be slipping back. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am rather more impatient than his speech suggested that he was, although he recognised that if the case were proved, action would have to be rather more urgent.
I am not prepared to accept that we should refer to yet another body for scientific research so that we can determine that our rivers are dangerous, unhealthy and foul. They are. Next month I shall take the chair at a conference in Paris to discuss the North sea. Although some of our European neighbours are a little holier than thou at times, we in the United Kingdom cannot hold up our heads with any sense of pride.
It is a pity that we have to have a dry summer before we recognise the evils or errors of our ways. Because of the dry summer, untreated sewage bacteria is falling on the heads of a substantial proportion of the population in the eastern part of my county. That is the result of taking untreated sewage water into the cooling towers at power stations. I heard a Conservative party Member say that that was because of the miners, because of having to burn coal at power stations.
Some of us have been arguing that we have not been cleaning our rivers for anything like as long as we should have been. Our rivers are foul. When I raised the matter in 1971 I was concerned about the industrial rivers of South Yorkshire. In those days the Ure, the Swale and the Nidd, all the rivers in our county, some of which water the constituencies of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, were clean.
Those of us interested in these matters have discovered that in recent years the rural rivers of Yorkshire are deteriorating faster than ours. For example, we discovered a couple of years ago that the number of offences committed by people in the rural areas of Yorkshire in our own water authority area had risen enormously. I was extremely critical of our water authority because the number of prosecutions was falling and had reached a pathetically low level. Then I acquitted the Yorkshire water authority because it can only operate within the law of the land. When it took out prosecutions it found that some people were making a fortune out of poisoning our water. Having been brought to justice, the commercial undertakings responsible for that poisoning were fined a

mere £200 or £300. It was scarcely worth the effort of the authority. It brought the law into disrepute and encouraged criminal action.
It is not only corrupt private businesses which are polluting our rivers; some farmers are also doing so. I recognise that many farmers do not wish to pollute the environment and that many of them have taken a great deal of trouble to avoid doing so. However, excessive use of nitrates is damaging our rivers and streams and the health of our country.
When people talk about the greenhouse effect and global warming they associate that with coal-fired power stations. I am not a scientist and I am not qualified to give an expert analysis of the facts, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that emissions from fertilisers make a significant contribution to the pollution of the atmosphere. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will recall that in the Committee considering the Electricity Bill I forecast the number of low-lying constituencies that would be inundated as a result of the greenhouse effect. The political benefit to the Opposition, prior to the election, would be enormous. In a party-political sense my attitude is relatively unbiased, however, as we must accept that the emission of greenhouse gases should be limited. We must ensure that the interests of man do not supersede those of the world climate. The Government should be spurred into action.
Perhaps there is some justified criticism of the Commission for prosecuting the British Government when it may not have had adequate information. Those of us concerned with nature conservation do not, however, require any more information to make us believe that the Government are guilty of negligence, incompetence or worse.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke about his site of special scientific interest. Last Saturday I addressed the annual meeting of the Yorkshire wildlife trust. As evidence for the thesis that I advanced I took a document entitled "Losing Ground", recently published by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. In February a noble Lord in the other place, answering questions on behalf of the Department of the Environment, suggested that he could not find one example of damage to a SSSI. In June a ministerial colleague confirmed in a parliamentary answer that in the past 12 months 228 SSSIs had been damaged. As the Nature Conservancy Council does not have the resources that it should, one cannot be sure that that list of damaged SSSIs is complete.
That background of administrative incompetence led the Prime Minister, on 16 January, to call for our wetlands, woods, moors, marshes, fields, ponds, rivers and hedgerows to be protected. She said that we are merely trustees and that no generation has a freehold on our island. My hon. Friends will remember that I responded to that call by tabling a Bill that very day to protect hedgerows. The Government blocked that Bill despite the fact that many Conservative Members, including some who occupy the Treasury Bench, wanted that Bill to succeed. I wrote two letters to the Prime Minister in which I criticised that decision, but she suggested that other things, as well as conservation, matter. The Prime Minister takes such an attitude when she is considering legislation, but on other occasions, for example when she spoke at the Royal Society of Arts, she is prepared to be as green as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues.


We should develop a bipartisan policy to such matters because we are talking about not simply the conservation of rare species, but the survival of mankind. Some of the conditions that develop from the eutrophication of water and the fact that our generation has been careless with the liberal doses of toxic material with which we have laced the environment have led us to recognise that we have gone too far.
I do not suppose that many hon. Members have had a similar experience to the one I have faced since August when I discovered that tonnes and tonnes of toxic waste was being kept one mile from my home. Immediately I found out I came to see the Minister on duty at the Department of the Environment. He was courteous, saw me immediately and gave immediate instructions that the toxic waste should be put into secure containers. It took about six weeks before the containers were obtained, and nearly two months—certainly eight or nine weeks—before the task was completed. The result is that I have hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste in my constituency, one mile from my home, in an area of Britain which is, more than most, crying out for regeneration and environmental enhancement. No one, not even the highest paid officials in public agencies or Ministers in the Treasury Department, knows what we are going to do with it.
The waste came improperly, if not unlawfully, from the United States of America. I had hoped that by now we would have made effective representations to the American Administration to get it shifted. However, we have 2,700 drums of toxic waste less than 1 km from my home, which has caused enormous anxiety. From the occasional visits which he has made to our area, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks will be aware of the problem. Despite all that, the drums are still there and I do not know when they will he moved. It is about time that I did.
This is a classic illustration, not merely of the historically low priority that these matters have enjoyed, but of the gross inadequacy of law and regulation which I hope will be put right in the green Bill because little measures of this sort will not suffice to meet the environmental challenge. The green Bill must do so, and I hope that when it comes before the House it will be of such character and content that it can be accepted on the bipartisan basis which I mentioned.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): I shall bring the House back to the topic which we are supposed to be debating: nitrates and the Community directive. I respect the knowledge of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and his concern about the environment, but he has given us a quick canter around the environment and that is not what we are here to talk about tonight.
I shall devote my remarks as quickly as I can—because I know time is short—to three items: first, how these matters impact on the nation's health; secondly, the role and image of the Community; and thirdly, our farmers' welfare. The Government's proposals in relation to nitrate levels and the time scale for improvements are reasonable. They have recognised the problem, and it is being tackled.
I shall turn to the question of the nation's health and what we are trying to protect the nation from. It is important on any environmental issue to get the facts right, otherwise we do ourselves and the issue no service.

We are talking of the possibility of nitrates causing the blue baby syndrome and cancer. The House of Lords report said of the blue baby syndrome that it was
now virtually non-existent in Western Europe".
There have been
14 cases … in the United Kingdom in the past 35 years, the last of which was in 1972 … the only recorded death was in 1950 when the nitrate level was found to be 885 mg/l". That is not a good case for identifying a desperate need to do something about nitrates in relation to blue baby syndrome.
The House of Lords report said about cancer:
Studies of fertiliser workers exposed to very high doses of nitrate have not shown any increased level of cancer and the overall trend in the United Kingdom has been a fall in the incidence of stomach cancer whilst nitrate levels in water have risen. Indeed, the incidence of stomach cancer is lowest in Eastern England where nitrate concentrations in water are highest … Most witnesses discounted the importance of nitrate in drinking water as a factor contributing to cancer development … The Institute of Cancer Research considered the evidence …to be 'very weak' … the Medical Research Council said that 'nitrates in water at levels of 50 —100mg per litre do not present any hazard with respect to gastric cancer'.
Without wanting to disregard those matters, that puts the situation into perspective.
It is important that the Community should not act in an arbitrary way. Our eyes are upon it and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has some strong feelings about it. If the Community is to maintain its credibility, it is important that it should not act in too arbitrary a way.
The Government invited the Commission to suggest any practicable ways in which work on these matters could be speeded up, but it was unable to come up with a single idea. That is how helpful it was. When it was trying to make us go faster, it could not come up with any ideas itself.
The farming community has been unfairly and harshly treated by the Opposition tonight, and I want to say a few words about farmers in general and about my Suffolk farmers in particular. We are talking not just about farmers, but about all the other industries that depend upon them in our rural communities, from the merchants and the fertiliser manufacturers, right down to the village shop and the local pub. All depend on a thriving agriculture.
It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Bootle (M:r. Roberts), and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that it is one thing to have too much food, but let us hope that we never see the day when we do not have enough food.
Suffolk has some of the best cereal farmers in the world, but they are feeling increasingly beleaguered. They are unfairly accused of surpluses when they were doing only what they were asked to do. They are also unfairly accused of damaging the environment when those who understand such things know that they have been good custodians of the environment. Anyone who cares to come to East Anglia will see that the countryside has never looked better.
Until recently the use of nitrates was regarded as good agricultural practice. Suddenly it is not, but it is unfair to start talking of pollution and to expect farmers to change their ways immediately.
My farmers are extremely fearful of Europe, 1992 and unfairness. One and a half pages of the directive relate to the United Kingdom and how we should tackle our nitrate


problem, compared with only four lines to describe the problem in Spain and two lines for Portugal. That shows how we are giving chapter and verse while others are not. That is an important point. Farming is a long-term business and farmers must be given time to adjust, with adequate compensation during that period.
Our farmers have served us well. We take them for granted at our peril. They deserve our fullest concern and support, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that he will provide just that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): This has been an interesting if wide-ranging debate, which often did not stick too closely to the exact terms of the directive.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may have misunderstood the Government's position. Let there be no mistake that the Government are committed to the 50 mg level in drinking water as it comes out of our tap. However, we want some flexibility on the water in the river, not at the point of abstraction or when it comes out of the tap. An averaging system would be perfectly acceptable there, and that is what we have been urging on the Commission.
Let me give a simple example in relation to blending. The Commission's original proposals were so inflexible that if river A had 20 mg and river B had 60 mg and they merged into river C which then averaged 40 mg, that, at the point of abstraction would be acceptable under the directive, but we would be forced to take a panoply of measures in order to deal with river B at source which was technically over the 50 mg limit even though no one was drinking it. We see no point in that response. That is why we have been negotiating with the Commission and making good progress.
It is true that some coastal regions in the North sea appear to be at risk of eutrophication. The algae blooms along the coasts of Denmark and Germany are an example. The ministerial declaration of the second North sea conference in November 1987 required states to take effective national steps to reduce nutrient inputs into areas where they are likely directly or indirectly to cause pollution. We would not consider possible eutrophication due to nitrate in parts of the North sea not adjacent to the United Kingdom as legitimate grounds for designating vulnerable zones in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Gordon also said that we need time to adjust. I agree entirely. One of the reasons we are going ahead with our candidate nitrate-sensitive areas is so that we can have a voluntary system up and running and so that we can assess the measure and its effectiveness before the EC directive becomes fully functional in four years' time.
Turning to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), I must tell him that I and my hon. Friend are not trying to duck the issues. Much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said is important but not within the terms of the directive. I shall try to give him a fair response.
The Government are engaged in a £1 billion programme to deal with the problem of sewage going directly into the sea. Part of the reason for privatising the

water companies was to generate capital investment from private sources to build more reservoirs—I understand that two are planned in my hon. Friend's part of the world —to deal with the problems of too great extraction.
My hon. Friend quoted from the letter I sent him about Slapton Ley. I am not ducking the issue, but the directive deals with nitrate in drinking water. It does not deal with pollution of a water supply causing damage to wildlife and to conservation. That is why my Department, with specific responsibilities for that, could not give him a more helpful reply. I am happy to discuss that problem with him, but if there is any pollution in his river from any farmers, I shall not defend farmers who cause pollution. The National Rivers Authority will have teeth and it will prosecute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is absolutely right to urge flexibility and some national variation. That is exactly what the Government have been urging, supported by our colleagues in other European countries who want some flexibility. The French in particular are aware of the possible dangers to their food supply and of the unnecessary disruption to good agricultural practice in the countryside if rigid limits are imposed when they are not strictly necessary.
I respect the long experience in the House of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He has been here much longer than I have and has a long commitment to the environment. I was fascinated by all he had to say about the general problems of pollution in the environment. However, the Government are committed to cleaning up our rivers. We are entirely committed to the 50 mg nitrate limit in drinking water, which is the reason behind the directive. Let me repeat that I would not defend any farmers who are causing pollution from whatever source. My Department has a grant scheme for slurry containment systems to make sure that pollution is eliminated or reduced to the absolute minimum. Even then, if farmers cause pollution in spite of the generous grants available from my Department, that is a matter for the prosecuting authorities.
I am not a scientist. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are not all scientists. I do not know the exact effects of fertilisers on global warming. However, in the past few years my Department has been instrumental in urging farmers not to overdo the use of fertilisers. We ask farmers to optimise fertiliser not to maximise it—to use no more than the right amount at the right time of year.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: I am coming on to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He need not worry about that.
We have been successful in reducing nitrate leaching by 60 per cent. by reducing the amount of autumn fertiliser applied when there is no uptake of it.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Maclean: No. I have only three minutes left, and I want to save at least two minutes to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roberts: rose——

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman spoke for about 20 minutes. I have only 7 minutes and I am going to utilise them. My hon. Friend——

Mr. Roberts: rose——

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is trying to stop me from speaking in this debate. If he does, it will be on the record——

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Members who lengthened my contribution, who caused me to speak for as long as I did, were Conservative Members who intervened——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Roberts: The Minister accused me of lengthening the debate——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Maclean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on making some valid and sensible points. It is right to stress the importance of the food supply in this country. Many countries do not have an adequate food supply—thank God that we do, and we should not forget that.
I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). We have had a good, sensible and wide-ranging debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regret some of his remarks. He did not address himself to the debate, but instead made a ragbag of bitter accusations against farmers and the agricultural lobby, which he described as pernicious, and my Department, which he called the MAFFIA. I do not care if he calls me the MAFFIA, but he should remember that in my Department there are hundreds of good, honest civil servants—scientists and doctors—and it is disgraceful to refer to them as the MAFFIA.
We are not cutting research on nitrate pollution. If the hon. Gentleman cares to visit the experimental research station that I visited at Gleadethorpe, he would realise the success of our nitrate research. The hon. Gentleman brought in the blue baby syndrome; he just cast it into the debate without any facts. He also threw stomach cancer into the debate. There is no evidence of stomach cancer related to nitrate use.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Maclean: No.

Mr. Roberts: Give way.

Mr. Maclean: No, I shall not give way. I have only 30 seconds remaining——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business.)

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4136/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 relating to control of nitrate pollution; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community action to control nitrate pollution takes sufficient account of the range of circumstances in each Member State.

Burma and Cambodia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Jim Lester: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister in the task that he has to perform because not only has he flown overnight from Washington, but the matters that I shall raise do not fall within his area of responsibility. However, I have great faith in his ability and his intelligence, and I am sure that the debate will be both constructive and helpful.
I realise the difficulties of dealing with two critical subjects in an Adjournment debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and others in pressing for time for a major debate at the earliest opportunity. It is because there is a sense of urgency that I bring these matters before the House tonight. Both countries under discussion—one with a recognised Government of questionable standards and the other the only country in the world where Britain does not recognise any Government, whether internal or external—are engaged in a civil war that is increasing the wholly unacceptable risk of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge by military force. It is the result of the ambivalent policy of the Western powers and their inability to adjust quickly enough to the changing situation.
First, I shall deal with Burma. It appears that it has less impact in this country than in America and Australia, yet we have very much more reason to be concerned about events in that country. Anyone who, like me, has visited the war cemetery in Rangoon and seen the 33,000 graves there will recognise how many lives have been laid down in the interests of a free Burma.
Now, however, there is not a single foreign journalist in Burma: the stringers who write for our newspapers are circumscribed by the present Burmese Government. I can only say thank God for the BBC, which is listened to everywhere in Burma. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the BBC has received 80,000 letters from Burma in the past six months—a third of the number that it receives from all over the world. That is an indication of the way in which those people reach out for our help, and it is a matter of concern that, apart from speaking in Adjournment debates, we can do so little to muster that help.
I especially want to raise the position of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League of Democracy, who has been under house arrest—as have those of her fellows who are not in prison—since July. According to figures that I have obtained from various sources, thousands have been arrested since then. SLORC itself says that it has over 1,200 political detainees, and other reports suggest that the figure is nearer 3,000.
Evidence given to the sub-committees on human rights and Asian and Pacific affairs of the House of Representatives provides overwhelming corroboration of what has been said. I shall read out only brief extracts, but I can give my hon. Friend all the evidence. It raises serious doubt over how free and fair elections can be held in May 1990, as has been promised, if the effective opposition—which commands the majority of support—is either in prison or under house arrest.
According to one of the statements to the House of Representatives committee by the Under-Secretary responsible for this part of the world—the deputy assistant Secretary of State, Mr. David Lambertson—
The government denies that it is making political arrests or is mistreating detainees. It likewise denies credible reports we have of instances of torture. Instead, it claims that those detained are criminal offenders who will be tried as such. In our view, given numerous credible, firsthand reports of the regime targeting opposition political activists, in the absence of verifiable charges, the Burmese government's version of events simply does not square with the facts. Indeed, there seems to be a pattern of attacks against the larger opposition political parties.
Further evidence given to the committee by Ambassador Richard Schifter, the assistant secretary for human rights, states:
In July, the regime granted to local military commanders summary powers of trial and execution. Under present martial law, there are effectively no legal means for accused persons to defend themselves. Military tribunals, completely lacking legal training, have the final say on all cases, political or criminal. Defence lawyers are severely limited in what they are allowed to say and reportedly under warning that too vigorous a defence can result in negative consequences for the client and the lawyer.
I also wish to raise with my hon. Friend the position of the students who fled from the Rangoon riots and civil disturbance to the Thai border. I met many this summer at a conference in Caux. One of the saddest aspects is the fact that those young people have been torn from their education and living in atrocious conditions, hunted down by the army. In September, one of them wrote to me:
The current situation inside Burma is in adversity. The … military regime has again suppressed brutally … the opposition force in the country-wide mass arrest. Because of this … repression there is a sudden influx of more students from inside Burma to many of our camps … The military regime is also reorganising its troops to make an all out offensive to wipe out all our student camps along the border in the coming dry season. All these efforts come from within their despair towards the situation. I would say that they are in despair because the foreign currency reserves are virtually reaching to the bottom … and the general public feelings towards the army is in the form of hatred.
How do the Government and the European Community stand in terms of ensuring that foreign observers are able to oversee the treatment of opposition parties during elections? Unlike Cambodia, where there are many foreign observers, they are unable to report what goes on. Under what conditions would the Government consider resuming aid? In the meantime, do we have any plans to follow the example of the United States which has granted $250,000 in aid to students in the camps, both on humanitarian grounds and also to help some of them to complete their education?
What is being done by the international agencies? We were ready to use them in Cambodia. Are we prepared to involve them in what is happening in Burma? We seek fairness of approach because Cambodia and Burma have various things in common. They are beautiful countries, rich in natural resources. Both have been devastated—Burma by years of Socialism and both of them by having been involved in a geopolitical war.
One has a great sense of urgency about Cambodia. There is to be a debate in the United Nations on 15 and 16 November. I have the draft resolution here. I notice that the new words, in italics, are a change from the previous debate. They must sound very strange to the hon. Member

for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who went with me to Cambodia. The words sound very strange to me, too. They read:
Noting the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under the leadership of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk to achieve the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status of Kampuchea".
That is an example of the fact that we are supporting only one side in what, in effect, is a civil war.
We seem to be unable to change our attitude quickly enough because we continue to support only the coalition, which I have described as a coalition of convenience. It is not a united coalition. They have separate camps. There are even separate camps for Aung San and Sihanouk. They have separate armies and different political philosophies. Nevertheless, we support a resolution that welcomes the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under this leadership to achieve independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status for Kampuchea.
The only common theme in the coalition is its opposition to Vietnam, a theme that is shared by other Governments, even though Vietnam has withdrawn the majority of its forces from Kampuchea. That common theme makes it impossible to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the problem.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley and I have been twice to Cambodia—in 1987 and again very recently. We realise that we need a better balance between the Hun Sen internal regime, which is running the country with increasing success, despite immense difficulties, and the external Khmers. They have held together in coalition, but during the last 10 years they have done nothing towards assisting the country's development. Without question, the Khmer Rouge is most secretive. It will not reveal its military strength. It will not allow other people to enter its camps. Its military strength is the most powerful in the region. It is the only faction that stands to gain from the attitude that we adopt. I think that I am the only hon. Member who has visited not only the Association of South East Asian Nations countries and Thailand but Cambodia twice.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the UNDP report entitled "Kampuchea Needs Assessment Study". The United Nations commissioned the report to investigate the state of Cambodia and to see what it needs, but it was prevented, by prejudice, from visiting Phnom Penh and was ordered to remain in Bangkok. To its credit, whether it worked from Bangkok or Saigon, it produced this report, which will shortly be published. It covers Kampuchea to an extent that one cannot do in this debate. The preface says:
Where discussion of prospects requires policy assumptions, the Mission has generally assumed continuation of the recent progress. It has become clear in our numerous discussions with all concerned, that there is an aspiration to return the country to the social and economic status that it enjoyed in the late 1960s, when the outlook was so promising, and to achieve this with less emphasis on state ownership and control of commercial activities. The Mission therefore makes reference to conditions … so as to provide a datum against which to measure the current situation.
The report analyses every aspect of life in Kampuchea, including social services, industry and the state of the roads.
That document should be considered in the debate on the draft resolution, because it is nonsense that we are


taking sides against a regime that has built up the country in the past 10 years and recently granted freedom of religion. Furthermore, it has a market economy and has declared itself to be neutral. To that extent, it has abrogated its treaty with Vietnam. I object most strongly to the fact that we constantly seem to be taking sides against the Cambodian Government on behalf of people who have never been anywhere near it throughout the difficult times.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that, unless we are able to stop the current hostilities, there is a risk of the worst scenario happening—that the Khmer Rouge could succeed militarily? That is too high a price to pay for our present policy. I do not know where we would hide our faces, given the statement of Western leaders, the Prime Minister and the American President, if Pol Pot and his regime were allowed to return./
I press my hon. Friend to state our support for the Prime Minister of Thailand, Chatichai Choonhavan, and for what he is doing to bring together the two sides. It is essential that we try to get hostilities and arms supplies from the Americans, Russians and Chinese suspended. If we are to make progress, it is essential that we accept the invitation of the Hun Sen regime for a mission to visit Kampuchea as a creature of the Paris conference.
One mission of the Paris conference has already paid a visit, but I should not have thought that it was too much to ask for a second mission to verify that the Vietnamese have withdrawn and that the 1 million Vietnamese settlers, who are constantly thrown into the argument by China and the coalition do not exist. The mission could take with it external Khmers, who could tell the difference between Vietnamese and Khmers and talk to the locals. That would be one way of dealing with the myths and arguments that so dominated Paris. As my hon. Friend may know, the arguments in the ad hoc committee were on the basis of genocide on one side and Vietnamese settlers on the other. The reality is that the genocide happened—we can all verify that—but the Vietnamese settlers can be found whether they are there or not.
If we want a comprehensive settlement, an interim government must be formed based on the Jakarta proposals for two sides—the internal Khmers and the external Khmers. There should be no special place for the Khmer Rouge. While it is agreed that it can be part of Prince Sihanouk's team, it is totally unacceptable politically to him and, I believe, to the people of Cambodia that it should be in a quadrapartite interim Government in its own right with its army intact. We could have what we all want—free and fair elections supervised by the international community that allow the people to decide —if we pursue that course. What we cannot do, and what we seem to be seeking to do, is to impose a regime from outside with too high a risk and, in my view, leading to the worst possible solution—the success of the Khmer Rouge currently fighting in Cambodia.
During discussions on my travels through this part of the world, people cry out for Britain to play a greater role. In Burma, the people look to us as a country steeped in diplomacy and fairness. Cambodians look to us as the only member of the Security Council which has not had a direct involvement in the geopolitical situation there. I only hope that I can put over the yearning of these people for Britain's greater involvement because of our history and our tradition and because we have something real to offer.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady must have the consent of the hon. Member whose debate it is and the Minister. Does she have that consent? I see that she has.

Mrs. Clwyd: I join the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) in appealing to the Government to rethink their policy on Cambodia.
With the hon. Gentleman, I recently visited Cambodia for the second time in two years, and I totally agree with what he has said. I would like to ask the Government—this may be the one point on which the hon. Gentleman and I disagree—to challenge the seating at the United Nations when Cambodia is debated on 15 November. That may seem relatively unimportant to us, but it is of great importance to the people of Cambodia because they regard the seat as an important symbol of the world's attitude towards them. It is invidious to have in that seat, as the dominant partner in the coalition, people who represent the Khmer Rouge and who were closely associated with its regime.
Everyone who knows the Khmer Rouge and how it currently thinks, knows that its attitudes have not changed. The people of Cambodia fear that, in some guise, the Khmer Rouge may return. They have great doubts about involving it in any political solution. They believe that they can contain the threat of the Khmer Rouge on the border, but are deeply fearful about the effect of its being allowed back into the country as part of a political settlement.
We know of the desperate need of the country and the fact that it is still isolated by the West. The Leader of the House told me during questions last week that he had no doubt that the Vietnamese have withdrawn from Cambodia. There can be no doubt about the fact that the Vietnamese have not remained as settlers.
We know, too, of Cambodia's desperate need for proper development aid so that the people can improve their infrastructure and their health services and rebuild their country. I cannot stress too strongly their wish to be non-aligned. They do not want to be part of the Eastern bloc. They want to be non-aligned. That is why they do not understand the continuing attitude of the West towards them.
Last week, I put to the Leader of the House, who was answering on the Prime Minister's behalf, a question about an allegation made in Jane's Defence Weekly that the United Kingdom had been training guerrillas over the past four years on the Thailand side of the border in several secret camps. That point was repeated in a film by John Pilger, which was shown last night and in a headline in today's Daily Mirror,
Thatcher orders the SAS into Cambodia's killing fields".
The Leader of the House said that the Minister would deal with that question in summing up this debate. I hope that he will, because it would be the greatest duplicity for the United Kingdom to be involved in training guerrillas to fight the Government in Phnom Penh having signed a communiqué in Kuala Lumpur on south-east Asia stating clearly that Cambodia must be allowed to decide its destiny free from foreign interference. I should like to have the Minister's assurance on that point.
I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe for giving me some of his valuable time. The eyes of the world are again on Cambodia and the civil war which persists there. The people are looking to the world, especially Britain because of its past role, to play a constructive part in getting a political settlement and ceasefire. We know the desperate need in that country. Unless we play an active role in trying to bring about a settlement, we too shall be guilty of causing bloodshed in that country.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I have three minutes per country and therefore cannot do justice to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) or of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I say with no false modesty that my hon. Friend knows much more about these subjects than I do. They are not within my remit in the Foreign Office. I have returned today from America to find myself answering this debate.
I know Burma a little. I suppose that one begins to feel old when one can say that 20 years ago one was doing something in a grown-up way. Twenty years ago, to this very month, I was in Burma, which is a beautiful, inherently rich country with a fascinating and ancient culture. It has been ruined by a system of government which made one weep then and makes one weep now. In the past, the wasted opportunities made one weep; now it is worse.
For the historical reasons which my hon. Friend mentioned, the many friends of Burma in the House and in this country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), share the British Government's horror at the violent suppression of the pro-democracy movement and the reversal of the initial steps forward which the State Law and Order Restoration Council appeared to take when political parties were first legalised.
For a few months, opposition leaders were allowed to make speeches. If anything, this respite from the authoritarian rule of the previous 26 years has made the crackdown even more depressing. Hundreds of political organisers and activists have been imprisoned or placed under house arrest, perhaps the most important among them being Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy. It is clear from the evidence released by the United States Government and others that some of those arrested have been tortured. The SLORC has now announced that politicians under detention will not be permitted to take part in the elections. Also, visas have been denied to foreign journalists. All the

developments this summer cast grave doubt on the sincerity of the regime's commitment to the democratic elections that have now been postponed until 1990.
Our clear opposition to the regime's disregard for human and political rights has been made clear and unequivocal, When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was the Minister for Overseas Development he announced in November 1988 our decision to freeze all but emergency relief aid to Burma. Similar action has been taken by our partners in the Twelve and by the United States, Japan and Australia. In every way, with our partners in the European Community, we have been trying to bring home to the Burmese authorities the concern that we feel.
I am summarising briefly the positions we have taken but they are unequivocal and clear. The most recent and perhaps the most powerful reference was in my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to the United Nations General assembly on 27 September. He referred to the
urgent need for the restoration of human rights and democracy through free elections".
I have only two minutes to devote to Cambodia. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley on her election today. However, I must tell her and my hon. Friend that I have nothing new to offer the House tonight. The arguments put by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and the changing situation in the period following the failure of the Paris conference must make us consider the future carefully.
I will not waste time by repeating the arguments for the policy we have adopted. There are arguments for it, such as that absorption of some part of the Khmer Rouge movement might diminish the power of the rest of the movement and prevent it from overturning a Government who excluded it totally. Something like that has been the structure of the argument followed by countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations and others, and justifies the attempt to include some part of the Khmer Rouge movement—but not the Pol Pot supporters—in a future Government.
I understand the argument put by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that we must be extremely cautious even about that, since the basis for power that that might offer might be just the standing ground needed. As a result of the debate and world events, we will be analysing policy closely and I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend said——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.